5 ms·

>with the advance of information technology we should see more, not less, of these accomplishments recorded This is an over sophisticated way to say "no eviden

by tpeo 11y ago

>with the advance of information technology we should see more, not less, of these accomplishments recorded This is an over sophisticated way to say "no evidence, no thing". I don't intend to defend the existence of big foot (which I think is a silly comparison), but if asked about it I'd rather make no claims about it. The answer to whether it happened or not is moo.

sandworm101 11y ago
It's not that simple. I'm talking about phenomena for which we have lots of evidence. There is lots of evidence for Bigfoot and UFOs, but amount does not equate to quality or proof. My point is that with the increased number and quality of cameras and lower burden of creating footage we should see exponentially more footage over time rather than less. The recording of real phenomena should be directly related to the number and quality of cameras or other recording devices (see rogue waves, shark attacks). Phenomena that seem inversely related or at least disconnected from the spread of cameras (Bigfoot, UFOs etc) become less likely to be real over time. We still get occasional new footage or other evidence, but it doesn't fit the curve followed by known real phenomena.
- dalke 11y ago
  The relevant xkcd is https://xkcd.com/1235/ https://xkcd.com/1235/ . The commentary here now reflects the comments in the thread at http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1235 http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1235 .
- khed 11y ago
  I would be curious to know if you can actually state nonstrawmen arguments in support of UFO's. What is the strongest case that can be made for UFO's? Do you know what it is? If you do, can you reasonably refute it?
aidenn0 11y ago
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence in the case where you would expect there to be evidence. The fact that we don't have video footage of Egyptian Pharos is in no way evidence for them not existing, since they are purported to have existed prior to the invention of the video camera. Things that are purported to happen today should have good quality recordings of them if they are at all common.

by tpeo 11y ago

sandworm101 11y ago

It's not that simple. I'm talking about phenomena for which we have lots of evidence. There is lots of evidence for Bigfoot and UFOs, but amount does not equate to quality or proof. My point is that with the increased number and quality of cameras and lower burden of creating footage we should see exponentially more footage over time rather than less. The recording of real phenomena should be directly related to the number and quality of cameras or other recording devices (see rogue waves, shark attacks). Phenomena that seem inversely related or at least disconnected from the spread of cameras (Bigfoot, UFOs etc) become less likely to be real over time. We still get occasional new footage or other evidence, but it doesn't fit the curve followed by known real phenomena.

dalke 11y ago
The relevant xkcd is https://xkcd.com/1235/ https://xkcd.com/1235/ . The commentary here now reflects the comments in the thread at http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1235 http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1235 .
khed 11y ago
I would be curious to know if you can actually state nonstrawmen arguments in support of UFO's. What is the strongest case that can be made for UFO's? Do you know what it is? If you do, can you reasonably refute it?

aidenn0 11y ago

The absence of evidence is evidence of absence in the case where you would expect there to be evidence. The fact that we don't have video footage of Egyptian Pharos is in no way evidence for them not existing, since they are purported to have existed prior to the invention of the video camera. Things that are purported to happen today should have good quality recordings of them if they are at all common.