It never ceases to amaze me that some educated Americans continue to fail to think clearly when they reply to sightings of cryptids with “. . . it would have been seen.” Looking straight at their reasoning reveals the problem: “People who say they saw X could not have really seen X because if X existed then somebody would have seen X.”
I just started to watch a documentary on Bigfoot sightings in an area with a long history of that cryptid. I turned off the television when a ranger said “it would have been seen.” Of course faulty reasoning is not limited to critics who concentrate their fire on the Bigfoot.
I thought to get maybe a few thousand results by searching Google with the following:
Bigfoot “it would have been seen”
I got “736,000” for Google’s number of results. Granted, some of the first entries were unrelated to circular reasoning regarding Bigfoot sightings . . . but some did relate to cryptids, with that same old circular reasoning.
A drove of cattle went to drink, whereupon the huge monster raised his head above the water and approached the shore . . . The occurrence drew to the beach several persons residing not far distant and caused a sensation . . . [reported in 1867]
One comment in response included:
. . . if something that big came to eat a cattle back then, it would have been seen . . .
The point is simple: The report is about persons who HAD seen something. Therefore, it seems that this comment is by a person who has a problem with circular reasoning.
Loch Ness Creature
On another forum, someone commented on the possibility of the natural physical existence of Nessie.
I don’t believe in Loch Ness legend. As it is so huge, it would have been seen, as it is not seen, I don’t think it is in this world.
Where did that person get the idea that the creature is huge? Where else than from a reported sighting? What is a sighting? When somebody sees something. That person has the same problem: circular reasoning, not clear thinking.
Live Pterosaurs in America (second edition)
In the second edition of this book, I tackled that opponent of clear thinking: circular reasoning. In the appendix I wrote:
In logic and mathematics, “circular reasoning” can sometimes be a useful tool, but it usually refers to a fallacy involving arguments or reasoning in common communications. That improper reasoning is called “viciously circular reasoning,” and it has ensnared even highly-educated critics of the living-pterosaur investigations.
One critic (“Unexplained-Mysteries” online forum, Mar 31, 2009) said, “Simply put, if pterosaurs . . . [were] still around, they would be extremely obvious.” That sounds logical, except that it was a reply to a posting that included links to many web pages on eyewitness sightings: obvious pterosaurs.
. . . Why is this reasoning fallacious? It is not that the circular nature of the reasoning, also known as “begging the question,” causes statements to be false, but that the apparent reasoning is not reasoning at all. Worse than worthless, it misleads in giving a false impression of logic.
Could this critic mean that modern pterosaurs, by their size and strange appearance, would be noticed by many persons? I see another kind of reasoning problem, for I’ve also seen no mountain lion in the mountains of Southern California, notwithstanding I’ve walked where mountain lions may have stalked; most Californians have never seen a wild one. If the critic’s reasoning is not circular it is crooked: “Elusive” does not mean “nonexistent,” and “rare” does not mean “extinct.”
I have recently noticed a similarity between the Bigfoot and the living pterosaurs (no, I have not recently lost all sense of reason): Both cryptids seem to be mostly nocturnal. I suspect that Bigfoots and live pterosaurs are also uncommon, mobile, and reclusive, making them difficult for cryptozoologists to find.
But beware of careless reasoning (circular or not). Some cryptozoologists who have searched for living pterosaurs have indeed seen what very well could have been just that. One of those searchers was Craig Norman. Apparently he did see a large living pterosaur.
