Survivorman Bigfoot

[Magical Realist]

It's only a fault in perception if you know the person or thing.

Right. And everyone knows what a Bigfoot is. Hence mistaking a bear for a Bigfoot would be a misperception and a case of mistaken identity.

In that case, the misidentification of a guy in a ghillie suit as a bigfoot requires no fault in perception (since they look the same)....just a fault in reason and skepticism.

It's also a mistake of perception since you mistook the fake foilage suit as fur. Once again, mistaken identity due to misperception.

Again, mistaken identity doesn't require lying. Mistaking identical twins requires neither a fault in perception nor intentional deception.

No..mistaken identity ruled out due to the bigfoot seen running, throwing of a rock the size of a soccer ball, and the 17 inch footprint. He could only be lying, which he clearly is not.

The simple fact is that the more reports there are without evidence the least likely it is to actually exist, because the odds of finding evidence increase with the number of real sightings.

Plenty of footprints and broken branches left from sightings as evidence. Hence the increase of evidence with the number of real sightings.

[Syne]

Distance or dim lighting are not faults in perception, either of which could account for not misidentifying fur or a bear.

But you're a "true believer", so there's no convincing your otherwise. It's not a falsifiable hypothesis.

[Magical Realist]

Distance or dim lighting are not faults in perception, either of which could account for not misidentifying fur or a bear.

Yes they are. Misperceiving anything in dimness or at a distance as something other than what it is is a misperception of what it is.

But you're a "true believer", so there's no convincing your otherwise. It's not a falsifiable hypothesis.

Neither is your or my existence a falsifiable hypothesis. As it is with all ontic questions.

[Syne]

Distance or dim lighting are not faults in perception, either of which could account for not misidentifying fur or a bear.

Yes they are. Misperceiving anything in dimness or at a distance as something other than what it is is a misperception of what it is.

Does a natural limitation to perception make it a false perception? Or is the perception true and its interpretation (based on available stimuli) not?

But you're a "true believer", so there's no convincing your otherwise. It's not a falsifiable hypothesis.

Neither is your or my existence a falsifiable hypothesis. As it is with all ontic questions.

But the null hypothesis, that there is no big foot, is falsifiable. And it's that falsifiability that makes the null hypothesis the only scientific one...unless compellingly falsified.
IOW, my hypothesis is scientifically valid, while yours is not.
As a theist, I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that the null hypothesis about god is the scientific one as well. The difference is that a deity may be beyond the scope of science while a bigfoot is not...unless it is just some Native American forest spirit.

[Magical Realist]

Does a natural limitation to perception make it a false perception? Or is the perception true and its interpretation (based on available stimuli) not?

A natural limitation to perception can cause misperception. Dimness, distance, fog, or nearsightedness can all cause this.

But the null hypothesis, that there is no big foot, is falsifiable. And it's that falsifiability that makes the null hypothesis the only scientific one...unless compellingly falsified.
IOW, my hypothesis is scientifically valid, while yours is not.
As a theist, I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that the null hypothesis about god is the scientific one as well. The difference is that a deity may be beyond the scope of science while a bigfoot is not...unless it is just some Native American forest spirit.

Assertions of being may not be scientifically falsifiable. Yet they are certainly epistemically confirmable. To falsify the existence of Bigfoot, or you or I, we would have to scour the entire universe to make sure those beings don't exist. Which is impossible. But one sensory validation of said being and boom!...its existence is proven. This may be proof in itself of the limitations of science on matters of the existence of entities.

[Syne]

But the null hypothesis, that there is no big foot, is falsifiable. And it's that falsifiability that makes the null hypothesis the only scientific one...unless compellingly falsified.
IOW, my hypothesis is scientifically valid, while yours is not.
As a theist, I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that the null hypothesis about god is the scientific one as well. The difference is that a deity may be beyond the scope of science while a bigfoot is not...unless it is just some Native American forest spirit.

Assertions of being may not be scientifically falsifiable. Yet they are certainly epistemically confirmable. To falsify the existence of Bigfoot, or you or I, we would have to scour the entire universe to make sure those beings don't exist. Which is impossible. But one sensory validation of said being and boom!...its existence is proven. This may be proof in itself of the limitations of science on matters of the existence of entities.

Your belief in bigfoot is not a justified true belief. Hence it cannot be called knowledge. Your existence isn't falsifiable, but any universal statement, like "bigfoot doesn't exist" is falsifiable, since it only takes finding one to disprove it. Just like saying all swans are white could be disproven by finding a black one. Your claim that black swans exist is just an unsubstantiated belief until you can show a black swan. Once shown, its existence is self-evident, but you've yet to do that.
The lack of evidence is not a limitation of science, unless you are claiming bigfoot to be supernatural. The lack of evidence simply points to the null hypothesis as the most parsimonious and probable.

[Magical Realist]

But the null hypothesis, that there is no big foot, is falsifiable. And it's that falsifiability that makes the null hypothesis the only scientific one...unless compellingly falsified.
IOW, my hypothesis is scientifically valid, while yours is not.
As a theist, I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that the null hypothesis about god is the scientific one as well. The difference is that a deity may be beyond the scope of science while a bigfoot is not...unless it is just some Native American forest spirit.

Assertions of being may not be scientifically falsifiable. Yet they are certainly epistemically confirmable. To falsify the existence of Bigfoot, or you or I, we would have to scour the entire universe to make sure those beings don't exist. Which is impossible. But one sensory validation of said being and boom!...its existence is proven. This may be proof in itself of the limitations of science on matters of the existence of entities.

Your belief in bigfoot is not a justified true belief. Hence it cannot be called knowledge. Your existence isn't falsifiable, but any universal statement, like "bigfoot doesn't exist" is falsifiable, since it only takes finding one to disprove it. Just like saying all swans are white could be disproven by finding a black one. Your claim that black swans exist is just an unsubstantiated belief until you can show a black swan. Once shown, its existence is self-evident, but you've yet to do that.
The lack of evidence is not a limitation of science, unless you are claiming bigfoot to be supernatural. The lack of evidence simply points to the null hypothesis as the most parsimonious and probable.

To be honest, I am not so sure Bigfoot isn't supernatural or interdimensional.There is a growing segment of the Bigfoot community that proposes that Bigfoot can appear and disappear and exit this plane thru spacetime portals. There are an increasing number of accounts of Bigfoot doing exactly that. I shy away from admitting my openness to this aspect of the Bigfoot phenomenon, but it happens to fall in line with the "what is witnessed" approach to this phenomenon.

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/08/tr...g-bigfoot/

[C C]

To be honest, I am not so sure Bigfoot isn't supernatural or interdimensional.There is a growing segment of the Bigfoot community that proposes that Bigfoot can appear and disappear and exit this plane thru spacetime portals. There are an increasing number of accounts of Bigfoot doing exactly that. I shy away from admitting my openness to this aspect of the Bigfoot phenomenon, but it happens to fall in line with the "what is witnessed" evidence for this phenomenon.

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/08/tr...g-bigfoot/

I was about to go there as part of one item in a set, at the very end below. Will proceed and post as was, anyway, since I'm not in the mood for adjustments / revisions.

If there were any valid North American simian-creature events, it seems very unlikely that a Bigfoot population could have a continuous existence and coherent biological origin account in a traditional conception of the natural world (as well as maintain its elusiveness to scientific confirmation). But it's easy to see why some cryptozoologists keep hammering away in that futile context if they otherwise dislike paranormal or anomalous occurrences -- i.e., these guys (and gals?) seem to want respect as "scientists", even if the mainstream version labels their occupation a pseudoscience.

But it's not clear what the alternative understanding of Bigfoot would be in the available categories and nomenclature of the anomalous / trans-natural worldview. Perhaps some hybrid classification of Disappearing Object Phenomenon combined with one or two other ideations?

In sleep-paralysis, there seems to be a psychological template that manifests an array of differing phenomena dependent on the era and the subculture beliefs of the half-asleep, half-awake participant. Historically ranging from demons, night hags, ghosts, parasites, space alien visits and shadow people. Yet all those variably realized, hallucinated specific occurrences are still subsumed under a general formula or abstract placeholder of the sleep-paralysis entity, presence, or "experience".

With Bigfoot, however, there's a social participation or shared "out there" phenomenon rather than a personal / subjective quasi-dream event. And rather than a psychological template being behind it all, it would be more equivalent to some objective but spurious Platonic form or noumenal principle injecting its influence into a world usually regulated by its natural or familiar conventions. If the appearance left behind tangible footprints, bits of hair, etc -- then in the interpretative approach and cognitive orientations of the paranormal I guess that amounts to "conjuring" or some kind of random Boltzmann Brain related fluctuating into existence, which accompanies the public manifestation.

But an invading transcendent impulse would more likely make its patterns concrete / sensible by recruiting the available agencies of our non-abstract reality and having it all chalked up to coincidences and statistical probabilities by learned authorities. Vaguely akin to a castaway spelling out a giant SOS on the beach by collecting pieces of wood and other materials found on the island rather than with fabricated plastic components only available back in her native environment. (Thus a nest of hairs test as being an an aggregate from several different animal sources, a shaman garbed in fur decides to visit a wood at circa the same time, etc. Though the template or pattern has been filled with ordinary "stuff", the foreign "message" still is delivered and open to doubt even among believers as having any significance or meaning humans could relate to.)

I suppose that a science fiction hypothesis would be that Sasquatch are visitors from a parallel universe, time travelers, avatars of beings from outside the Matrix simulation, and so forth, But given their primitive and beast-like appearance that seems rather ridiculous (among other things) when minus further details to remedy it. Only the genre trope in the British series Primeval, with its "earthquakes in time" opening of portals for dinosaurs and creatures from past and future ages to arbitrarily pass through, might there be any semblance of the product fitting the scenario upon opening it right out of the box.

- - -

[Syne]

To be honest, I am not so sure Bigfoot isn't supernatural or interdimensional.There is a growing segment of the Bigfoot community that proposes that Bigfoot can appear and disappear and exit this plane thru spacetime portals. There are an increasing number of accounts of Bigfoot doing exactly that. I shy away from admitting my openness to this aspect of the Bigfoot phenomenon, but it happens to fall in line with the "what is witnessed" evidence for this phenomenon.

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/08/tr...g-bigfoot/

Hey, at least you're admitting it's just a belief, likely without any compelling evidence.