Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 5178367" data-attributes="member: 46713">Indeed. To my knowledge, there's not yet been a single sighting of a 'Bigfoot' from a reliable source. What is a 'Bigfoot' supposed to be, anyway? There may be plausible explanations for 'Bigfoot' sightings, but none of them actually require the existance of a 'Bigfoot'.The important thing here is that there are exceptions. While it may be true that some or even most cats don't like to swim, there is a sufficiently large number of well-documented counter-examples to convince me it's not a general rule (or rather it's a rule with exceptions <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />).So, what did RC try to illustrate with these examples again?!I agree with RC about this, though:This is basically true and the reason for the scientific approach to get objective results:A scientific thesis is demonstrable using repeatable experimental or mathematical procedures. You don't have to trust anyone's objectivity if everyone can (theoretically) prove something for themselves. If you repeat the experiment/calculation and you get the same results the thesis is plausible.The objectivity isn't a property of the observers, it's a result of the description of the method to prove it. (Or something like that...<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-P" title="Stick out tongue    :-P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":-P" />)</blockquote>

Verification