commodorejohn wrote:rmsgrey wrote:If you want to go down that route, it's not conclusively settled that there isn't an undetectable spider-web filling my doorway.
Hold on there. You're applying the undetectability thing about ghosts to the rest; that's not what I was saying. Nobody (well, probably some handful of ultra-fringe kooks, but nearly nobody) is saying that Bigfoot doesn't show up on film or what-have-you.
True, but people are saying that Bigfoot is secretive, reclusive, and good at not being caught on camera, that UFOs have upgraded their stealth technology, and that Nessie has a clever hiding place - the upshot is that, after the fact, it's predictable that it was impossible to observe them - that there's no possible negative observation that could show they don't exist.
What is pretty much settled is that, for example, Bigfoot as presented in popular culture is not out there in the way that is suggested by the number of sightings and photos from the last 50 years of the last century.
I have to question what presentation you're getting from "popular culture" wherein Bigfeet are as common as whitetail deer and regularly live around and venture openly into areas of high population density, and could therefore consequently be expected to be a common subject for candid photography by every schmuck with a cell phone. Even Harry and the Hendersons wasn't that divorced from the actual reputed habitat and behavior of the critters.
The "popular culture" where when I was younger, you'd have 2-3 Bigfoot sightings reported a year (and that was only on slow news days here in the UK) - it's not like deer where you can go down to the woods for a couple of nights and have a good chance of a sighting, but with tens of thousands of people in a position to possibly encounter a Bigfoot, no reported encounters for a couple of years is like living in the woods for thirty years and never seeing a deer...
If you say that something exists, but can never be detected when an attempt to formally document it is conducted, then you're putting forward an unfalsifiable hypothesis - on the same level as there being a label on my forehead that everyone apart from me can see, but which everyone reads as saying something different (well, some people read the same thing, but not everyone)
I'll basically agree with that. On the other hand, for the sake of argument, why should a thing be obligated to conform to your methods of investigation simpy because you want it to?
It's not about "my" methods of investigation; it's about people saying they've had a particular result from a particular procedure, and then saying that no-one else following their recipe (or any reasonable variation) will get the same result.