Forums

it is an interesting video. worth watching.

There's a ton of research on the concept of "motivated skepticism". It's basically the idea that we perceive more favorably any new information that supports our current opinion. So a motivated skeptic about the existence of Bigfoot will not give much consideration to any evidence that contradicts his prior belief, no matter how objectively good that evidence might be. Same would hold true for those already convinced that Bigfoot exist. This appears to happen subconsciously. Even the “scofftic” (to use norseman's term) could be unaware of his motivated skepticism.    Here's a cool academic paper on motivated skepticism for those interested. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280743835_Motivated_Skepticism_Use_of_Differential_Decision_Criteria_for_Preferred_and_Nonpreferred_Conclusions   True skepticism is difficult to realize. It's like our brains are always pushing us to validate what we think we already know.  

Wrong field, but a great explanation on closed minded scientists.   Dr. Gary Nolan   https://youtube.com/shorts/-Tzw21EcC8c?si=o4e6ah3F0C6QmpDq

The problem is we don't have agreed upon, well-defined terms which are universally understood.     I have no problem with the term "Skeptic" but it must be defined as to what kind of skeptic.  What do we mean by skeptic?  What do we mean by believer?  How do we define those who are somewhere in the middle who might lean skeptic or lean believer?    Generically, I would think a skeptic as someone who just doesn't think Bigfoot has been proven to be real at least to them.  A believer might believe bigfoot exists and yet thinks the PGF is a hoax.  Maybe they think the PGF is real, but the Memorial Day footage is a hoax.  There are diff degrees on what people believe and don't' believe.     It's not perfect but we have to at least attempt to use labels in the discussion of the Bigfoot issues.    BTW a skeptic can be open minded, and a hardline believer might change their mind. 

Skepticism in the world of bigfoot, in and of itself, is a healthy and necessary trait. Until someone plops a body or part thereof onto an examination table, it's all sus (suspect).   Trogluddite's excellent above post said it well. I, too, consider myself a skeptical believer. But, hoo boy, there are LOTS of issues with what's taken for "bigfoot canonical lore." (Hey, I coined a new phrase!)   Let's face it: Us bigfoot proponents can't blame disbelievers any too much. The biological necessities make it difficult to explain how enormous, bipedal primates can make a living without revealing their immediate whereabouts that should lead to their discovery.    So rather than grouse about those darned skeptics, realize just how much we're asking the general public to accept on faith. Footprints? Great. Shouldn't a skilled tracker be able to follow them to their source? Tree structures? Like Norse, and I'm not speaking for him, but I ain't buying it. Extremely circumstantial. The amount of daily caloric intake necessary to sustain a five-hundred lb. primate should leave traceable effects on the environment, and along with their footprint impressions, reveal their location to a tracker.   These are some of the nuts and bolts that fuel good, honest skepticism. I don't think it's fair to criticize someone for that. What we skeptical (and hopeful) proponents dwell on are the compelling first-hand accounts, recordings of calls and chatter of unknown sources, and a handful of films/videos, especially the renowned Patty (she's a rockstar!)   So here's to skeptical, hopeful belief.