Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

Loch Ness Monster-does it exist?

46 replies

Fillyjonk · 15/04/2008 08:49

Your thoughts please.

OP posts:
Original poster
Fillyjonk · 15/04/2008 08:50

this is interesting

the surgeons photo is a fake!

OP posts:
Disenchanted · 15/04/2008 08:50

Id say ......yes

littlelapin · 15/04/2008 08:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NotQuiteCockney · 15/04/2008 08:52

I would say no way, but ll's link has convinced me.

NotQuiteCockney · 15/04/2008 08:52

I prefer Ogopogo, for the name alone.

Original poster
Fillyjonk · 15/04/2008 09:04

oh dear

now I do not know what to think

OP posts:
Hallgerda · 15/04/2008 09:16

How about putting Ogopogo posters around Loch Ness as pin-ups to entice Nessie to the edge to ogle a fine Canadian hunk? Should settle the matter for once and for all.

nailpolish · 15/04/2008 09:18

of course! havent you seen the familyness?

UnquietDad · 15/04/2008 09:20

It's like any of these things - you need to weigh up the evidence. There is some shaky photographic and anecdotal evidence that Nessie exists, and quite a lot of other evidence that she doesn't, such as the 600-probe sonar sweep which showed nothing.

But ultimately nobody can "prove" a negative, so we can't be 100% sure that she doesn't. We can just be sensibly convinced by the evidence.

Sorry for a serious answer!!

Threadworm · 15/04/2008 09:24

Just out of interest, I've often wondered what people mean when they say that you can't prove a negative. I can prove that there is no loch ness monster in my house for example.

NotQuiteCockney · 15/04/2008 09:25

Can you, threadworm?

How?

(I thought you said you had a philosophy degree ...)

JossStick · 15/04/2008 09:29

Thread - not even a very tiny one down the loo?

littlelapin · 15/04/2008 09:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Threadworm · 15/04/2008 09:30

I look carefully in every single room and see that there is no loch ness monster in any of them.

NotQuiteCockney · 15/04/2008 09:31

Hmmm, how come everyone, talking to threadworm, about Nessie, is suddenly thinking of very tiny snaky monsters?

Threadworm · 15/04/2008 09:33

Ah, sorry x-posts. Here we go then: It is part of the meaning of the term 'loch ness monster' that is a creature of a certain type. Its characteristics include its non-tinyness. (Otherwise I could prove that there was a loch ness monster in loch ness by saying that it was a small fish-shaped creature identical to a minnow.)

southeastastra · 15/04/2008 09:33

no it's a log

NotQuiteCockney · 15/04/2008 09:34

Ah, but do its characteristics include non-invisibility? At all times?

(starts feeling this might slide into an ontological proof of the existance of god ...)

Threadworm · 15/04/2008 09:34

NQC you have found me out! It is I! The Scottish Tourist Board paid me a huge sum. (And who says I am tiny?)

Original poster
Fillyjonk · 15/04/2008 09:35

I would have thought it almost certain that, if the lnm exists, it does so at at atomic level. most of us do

oh you can't prove anything can you? ryle, epistemology, blah

OP posts:
NotQuiteCockney · 15/04/2008 09:36

Well, you can prove anything, depending on what you start with, really ...

Original poster
Fillyjonk · 15/04/2008 09:36

its not just any log either

its a pine log

except where its not

it may also have something to do with ufos. do ufos exist?

OP posts:
Original poster
Fillyjonk · 15/04/2008 09:37

no, you can ASSERT anything

proof is a construxt anyway

OP posts:
Blandmum · 15/04/2008 09:37

V doubtful that there is a large enough food chain to support an animal of that suppsed size

Threadworm · 15/04/2008 09:38

(The puzzling thing is the claim that it is harder to make an inductive proof of a negative than of a positive. All of the 'doubts' about a negative claim could be re-applied to a positive one.)