Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man: Having said that, I have to agree with others on this thread that the kangaroo claim would not be al l that extraordinary. They certainly knew that elephants and other unusual animals existed; why not kangaroos?

OK. Using your argument, we could say that plenty of animals exist that look similar to Bigfoot. Why not Bigfoot?

Marduk

"OK. Using your argument, we could say that plenty of animals exist that look similar to Bigfoot. Why not Bigfoot? "

Bigfoot would be nothing more than another primate, in fact 100,000 years ago there was a species of giant ape, 9-10 feet tall and there are specimens of their skulls remaining. Why not today? Because you can't just walk into the woods whenever you like and see a bigfoot like you can a kangaroo and there are no contemporary bigfoot skulls or bones to look at.
I don't know what the people who have claimed to have seen a bigfoot really saw, a bear, a guy in a bigfoot suit or the real thing I don't know, but it would still just be a big ape, maybe there are a few of those giant apes left, but I doubt it.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by marduck: Bigfoot would be nothing more than another primate, in fact 100,000 years ago there was a species of giant ape, 9-10 feet tall and there are specimens of their skulls remaining. Why not today? Because you can't just walk into the woods whenever you like and see a bigfoot like you can a kangaroo and there are no contemporary bigfoot skulls or bones to look at. I don't know what the people who have claimed to have seen a bigfoot really saw, a bear, a guy in a bigfoot suit or the real thing I don't know, but it would still just be a big ape, maybe there are a few of those giant apes left, but I doubt it.

So are you saying you would have believed in kangaroos had you lived in 16th century Europe and heard about them from someone who claimed to have visited Australia?

Vorkosigan

Polycarp has a point. There is nothing inherently extraordinary in the claim for Bigfoot, at least by CX's definition.

Nevertheless, the Bigfoot claim is rejected by almost all skeptics, although all skeptics embrace the possibility of Bigfoot.

An extraordinary claim would be one that comported with one or more of the following:

• called for a violation of known natural law;
• called for the repeated occurrence of a low probability event over long periods of time (for example, despite millions of hunters and other humans traipsing through the wilds of the northwest, no one has ever shot a Bigfoot, and no corpse has ever been found, while corpses of other animals of all sizes are frequently encountered);
• occurs in a field where fraud is rife and belief runs high;
• violates known capabilities or possibilities (such as the 85% aluminum alloy chain pulled from a Chinese tomb dated 296 AD).

How's that for starters?

Vorkosigan

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Marduk

"So are you saying you would have believed in kangaroos had you lived in 16th century Europe and heard about them from someone who claimed to have visited Australia?"
I really don't know what I would or would not believe if I were living in 16th century Europe, but I woud hazzard a guess that yes I would believe in kangaroos, especially if I'd have heard about elephants and hippos.

Wizardry

I don't think so, no.

Nope, good old evidence will do just fine.

Pretty much. The two situations are identical on first report ("I saw a large, hairy human-like thing" vs. "I saw a large hopping, deer-like animal"). There is no reason to believe one over the other if all you have is eyewitness testimony.

Further investigation shows that there is a poverty of evidence for Bigfoot, whereas the evidence for the existence of kangaroos is conclusive to the point of absolute proof. The lack of evidence despite ample opertunity to collect it makes the Bigfoot claim rather unlikely; it is not because the Bigfoot claim requires a higher standard of proof.

King Arthur

Does the phoenix exist? I mean, there are all kinds of ancient reports about it...from Herodotus, to Plutarch, to Pliny, and even to early Christians, Clement of Alexandria and Lactantius!

This bird, according to the ancients, lived something like 900 years. In its last year of life, it would go to a particular place in Ethiopia (I thnk), then spontaneously combust, and a new bird would rise from the ashes. I mean, it has to be true. There are all kinds of stories about it from ancient times.

Clement of Alexandria:
"Clement, one the ante-Nicaean Fathers, describes in the first century after Christ the peculiar nature and habits of the phoenix, in this way: "There is a certain bird which is called a Phoenix. This is the only one of its kind and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed." Although admitting that he had not seen the phoenix bird (there being only one alive at a time), Herodotus amplifies a bit the description given by Clement: "They tell a story of what this bird does, which does not seem to me to be credible: that he comes all the way from Arabia, and brings the parent bird, all plastered with myrrh, to the temple of the sun, and there buries the body. In order to bring him, they say, he first forms a ball of myrrh as big as he finds that he can carry; then he hollows out the ball, and puts his parent inside; after which he covers over the opening with fresh myrrh, and the ball is then of exactly the same weight as at first; so he brings it to Egypt, plastered over as I have said, and deposits it in the temple of the sun. Such is the story they tell of the doings of this bird."
<a href="http://www.winshop.com.au/annew/Phoenix.html" target="_blank">http://www.winshop.com.au/annew/Phoenix.html</a>

Lactantius account:

<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0707.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0707.htm</a>

Clement of Rome (100 A.D.) thought it had an actual existence, and he asserted that it was typical of the resurrection (Ep. Ad Corinth, xxv. P. 123). Tertullian believed the same thing (De Resurrect., 13, vol. 2., p 236). Celsus, the noted anti-Christian writer, used this fact to illustrate the credulity of the early Christians, and Origen defended the fable rather than accept the just criticism (Contra Celsum, iv. 98).

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/faithofyeshua/competent.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/faithofyeshua/competent.htm</a>

NOGO

Seems to me that you have framed your question exactly with this hindsight that you wish to deny others. You now wish to push the discussion to the point where you can claim that skeptics were wrong to doubt the kangaroo stories. Why not pick an example where the story is later verified as false and then I can claim that the believers were naive and should have been more skeptical.

Let me give you another example. Marco Polo claimed that he saw unicorns. His description points to rhinos. Your description of a kangaroo reminds of the definition of a unicorn, a horse's body, a stag's legs, a lion's tail, and a straight spiraled horn growing from its forehead. My point is that if a proper description would have been given in both these cases then people would not have been as skeptical.


Why don't we pick a question which is not resolved yet?

There has been many reported sightings of flying saucers.

Do you believe that we have had visitors from space, yes not no? ... and why?


Item 1
Belief should be proportianal to evidence.
Would I have believed in kangaroos 400 years ago.
On one man's claim, a bit.
On two, a bit more.
All the way to, I saw it myself then a lot more.

Item 2
Belief is also inversely proportional to claim.
I tend to believe many things simply because people tell me.
I do not believe that Mohammed split the moon in two.
To make me believe this one I would need some very solid evidence and so would you.

Item 3
Belief is also dependent on how we and others are affected by the claim.
This should not be but humans are humans. A mother will not readily believe that her sweet and kind young man raped a girl or robbed a bank. His denial will supersede even the strongest evidence. Here also falls claims by people who have vested interests. etc. etc.

Religious believers tend to ignore or whitewash the evidence, do not believe that their claims are extraordinary, and are totally unaware of item 3.

Let me give you an example of item 3. I had an arguement with a friend about the Sunday morning contradictions between Matthew and John. He refused to admit that there was a contradiction. I challenged him to combine the two stories into one without deleting anything but he could add all that he wanted. He accepted the challenge but never produced anything.

My point about these two stories is not just the contradiction itself. Since these two stories are totally different then one or the other or both were fabricated. So why would someone fabricate such a story? This is an item 3 issue. Believers in general just refuse to see this.

Steven Carr

Should sceptics also have believed in Piltdown Man?

If I remember rightly, the first scientist to be given a duck-billed platypus took it apart to see how the hoax had been put together.

Why should sceptics have believed in kangaroos?

Do you believe all Marco Polo's tales about China?

Do you believe in mermaids? If not, tell me why not.

I'm sure that if I searched I could find all kinds of travellers tales of things that sailors in the 16th century claimed to have seen.

Metacrock

I've had similar arguments on this same board. Two things I would like to ask skeptics to do:

1) prove to me why belief in God should be considered the extraordinary calim? I can see why miracles would be, but why just belief in God itself?

2) Show how you decide what is extraordinary? Because that's just a convient thing to raise the bar anytime evidence is offered. No evidence is ever good enough because its an "extraordinary" cliam.