Bigfoot fallacies

 story link

Bigfoot Fallacies

Type	Definition	Reason
Appeal to Misleading Authority	Using an authority to affirm a conclusion when the authority is not expert enough, in the context, to assure the conclusion.	He puts in the title that he’s a police officer and is ex-military, and later says “I am educated, am of sound mind, and am not wasting my efforts here on a hoax of any sort,” and he says that because of these positions, the reader should trust that he’s reliable.
Hasty Generalization	A conclusion is drawn from too small a sample of evidence.	This guy saw what he thought was a bear at night. But then when it stood and left on two feet, he assumed that this meant that it couldn’t be a bear, when, in fact, bears do sometimes walk on two feet.
Anecdotal Fallacy/ Misleading Vividness	A Hasty Generalization that relies on the availability heuristic (we generalize from vivid stories more readily).	He gives a very “’twas a dark and stormy night” description of everything, making it read almost like a passage from a book rather than a report of a sighting.
Accent	The way you emphasize a word makes the conclusion seem more true.	“I saw a creature rise up on TWO legs and begin to move…”
Bandwagon	A popular idea is correct.	“First of all, it was the discovery of this website and report submission form which inspired me to come forward and reveal my sighting incident. I have held off for over four years for fear of accusations of incompetence and lunacy-- after all, who doesn't poke fun at the "freaks" who tell of UFO and Bigfoot incidents?” He seeks validation from a group of people who allegedly believe stories like his.

ARTICLE USED: https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=680

Bigfoot Fallacies and P-OT Charts

Hierarchically arranged	Example linked to double hierarchy of multiple events/concepts.	“I went back inside my house and grabbed the gun, when I came back out it was gone. I don't know what he was doing there. It was just a big tall black mass peeking out from behind the shed.” Then the author states that,”… I jumped up and ran inside to get the gun. I was able to see its head, part of the shoulder and some of the knee. It was leaning out.”	One minute the author is saying that they really couldn't see Bigfoot, and in the next quote now they're saying what they saw of Bigfoot.
Presence	Event strikes the imagination in connection with the rule.	“I'll be sitting on my couch and feel like someone is looking through that window and I'll look up and there is nothing there. And when I get this feeling I am home by myself.”	I think all of us feel that at one point, and they can’t just assume it is bigfoot.
Space	Making it feel close.	“It was massive, it was big.”	She makes it sound like it was super close to her.
Red Herring	The premises of the argument are logically unrelated to the claim.	“I have an apple orchard in the back , but of course this time of year there aren't any apples. But last year later on a lot of apples were gone. My husband picks up all the bad ones and throws them out in the field.”	The last sentence in this has nothing to do with bigfoot. If it does it makes no sense.
Appeal to Ignorance	Something is true because there is no evidence for it.	“There has been other times by my camper shell I have heard noises, I've run inside and get the big light and shine it over there but nothing there. There are a lot of unusual noises I've heard over the years here that I've never been able to put what it was.”	There is no evidence to prove that it was bigfoot all those years.
Wishful Thinking	Something is true because I want it to be.	Overall text of the bigfoot story.	No pictures of anything, not even the footprint.

Restraint

Connections between act and essence are reduced.

Throughout her story, her facts really do not add up.

She tries to make the reader try to believe her but fails.

Accident

A sweeping generalization of a fact or a rule, presented as if it has no exception.

“I got to thinking about this because someone found a footprint recently between Bunker Hill and Staunton.”

She really wants us to believe it is BigFoot who watches her.

http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=41043

Bigfoot! Fallacies

Accent: The way you emphasize a word makes the conclusion seem more true	“Extreme deep howling sound that sounded something like whoooooaaahhhh..” because they have never heard an animal like this before
Hasty Generalization: A conclusion is drawn from too small a sample of evidence	“It seemed clear to us that they were calling back and forth to one another” they really did not have any evidence to conclude that they were calling back and forth just that they heard the same noise from different areas
Cum Hoc : two things that happened at the same time must have a casual relationship	“It seemed clear to us that they were calling back and forth to one another” they really did not have any evidence to conclude that they were calling back and forth just that they heard the same noise from different areas
Appeal to authority: Using an authority to affirm a conclusion when the authority is not expert enough, in the context, to assure the conclusion	“Between the two of us we have about 60 years of night fishing and hunting in this area and this was a first”  “I've spent the good part of my life gill net fishing at night on this river ..”  In both quotes he is making himself the “expert” although there is nothing that could possibly qualify him, it just means he has experience out in the wilderness
Bandwagon:a popular idea is correct	“ we were just sitting in the truck for about 2-3 minutes …” this is a stretch but what if one of the men is only saying this because the other said so? Would this make the argument a bandwagon because its more popular than believing in a different animal
Wishful thinking: something is true because I want it to be	“.. and his wasn’t anyone of those things” he is implying it is one thing because he wants it to be an animal that he has no idea about even though it could've been an animal he has seen and knows

Bigfoot Fallacies

Term:	Definition:	Quote(s):	Explanation:
Appeal to Ignorance	A misleading argument used in reliance on people’s ignorance.	“I am 67, retired RN & former private pilot with excellent vision- 20/15, so I was not mistaken”	She is certain of what she saw because of her past experience and that should be taken with legitimacy.
Faulty Cause	Assumes that because one event follows another, the first event caused the second	“Later in day I went out to that area with my small dog. She refused to even walk and was trembling. “	Since Bigfoot was there, her dog was afraid to walk in the same spot that he had.
Straw Man	An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.	“This is the same dog that almost went thru a screen door to attack the bear by our feeder a few weeks ago.”	Using an anxiety point about her dog being terrified in this incident when explaining that this is not his normal temperament.
False Equivalence	A particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion. I	“There are many snowmobile & ATV trails plus the Long Trail is only 1/5 miles. It was very wooded and remote. A few homes and camps on our road.”	The environment nearby is mentioned but has nothing to do with the creature itself.
Cum Hoc	Two things that happened at the same time must have a causal relationship.	“I noticed an area of bent weeds that would have been where the creature had exited our woods, going into a small ditch then back up to get onto road before walking past our drive. On the roadside, in the direction I saw it going, there were 3 barefoot heel depressions w/ faint toe marks approx. 12 inches long.”	There were tracks where the creature had moved and twigs were also heard snapping.

BIGFOOT fallacies

Bigfoot Fallacies

https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=9312

Term:	Definition:	Quote(s):	Explanation:
Appeal to Misleading Authority	Using an authority to affirm a conclusion when the authority is not expert enough, in the context, to assure the conclusion.	“The deputy and I found the witnesses credible.” “The deputy left the scene convinced that the witnesses believed that they had absolutely seen something highly unusual.”	They say that this must be true because the deputy and guy checking out the story agree with the witnesses, but how do we know these people are credible?
Bandwagon	A popular idea is correct.	“I always thought things like this weren't real but now I know different. They are very real. After we saw what we saw, the El Campo newspaper had an article about a similar animal about 30 miles away in Matagorda County.”	They didn’t believe in this stuff until now, and now they’re jumping on the bandwagon.
Hasty Generalization	A conclusion is drawn from too small a sample of evidence.	“...I could not see anything because it was so dark. That's when I decided that it must be someone over there because it sounded like a heavy person had stepped on the tin.”	They literally admitted they couldn’t see what was going on, so they just “decided” that bigfoot was over there based on the little evidence they had.
Anecdotal Fallacy / Misleading Vividness	A Hasty Generalization that relies on the availability heuristic (we generalize from vivid stories more readily).	“Our son has heard a sound like a sick cow. Our nephew said he saw an 8 ft monkey digging in the dumpster in the early 1990's. We did not believe him. We do now.”	Two other people they know saw/heard similar things, so it must be real.
Cum Hoc	Two things that happened at the same time must have a causal relationship.	“In addition, a while back, the witnesses had two dozen chickens that had been the prey of an unknown predator … The witnesses always thought an opossum had eaten their chickens.”	Their chickens got mauled a little while before they saw bigfoot, so bigfoot must have killed them.