Guest FuriousGeorge Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Yeah, how 'bout that? Aristotle never managed to snap a single photo. What a phony. Here is a nice article from the Smithsonian. It's four pages, and is a quick/easy read. It has some of the references Saskeptic is talking about. Giant Squid by Erin O'Conner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 That was a good read FG, it even has a cool cartoon that's pretty funny. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Ok, I do apologize for that. Not all skeptics are scofftics, it's the scofftics I have a problem with. I myself am fairly skeptical about a physical creature, sometimes more than others. But I think a dismissive attitude towards the phenomenon is unwarranted. Please explain your definitions of skeptic and scoftic because to be honest it seems that, to you, a skeptic is anyone who agrees with your particular skeptical viewpoint and a scoftic is anyone who doesn't, as demonstrated by your posts on this thread. Saskeptic and Ray G certainly are not scoftics, as it has been defined to me, but these are the gentlemen who have been the target of your insults and condescension. Both have been members here for years and obviously have an interest in the subject other than just poking at bigfooters. I've been involved in many discussions on this very board about what is and what is not a scoftic and it seems the definition is on a sliding scale depending on who is using that particular derogatory term at any particular time. I think it's just an attempt at getting away with insulting someone in a way that the user feels is socially acceptable here, even though it isn't. Maybe an alternate definition of the word scoftic could be one who scoffs at skeptics because that is far more prevalent here than the original Roger Knights' definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Oy vey . . . First, I suppose you should decide on what you at least think is factual to avoid such contradictions. (Hint, for the severalth time: Pliny described a giant squid in the 1st Century.) I also loved the "prior to 1957" bit. You certainly moved those goal posts farther than I can kick the ball. By the way, do you have any evidence of those ostracized scientists who expressed their interest in studying giant squid? Prior to 1857, of course. As it is impossible to consider the squid as a cryptid subsequent to that date, I had hoped it was understood that the squid was being considered as it existed prior to being described by science. And this date is usually given as 1857. Yes, Pliny described such a creature. But he also described dragons, basilisks, and other legendary members of the ancient bestiary. While it is fine to admire Pliny's anachronistic sobriety regarding the natural world, are you sure you want to drape a supplemental wing of the scientific tent over Pliny's work, without considering further just what you've let inside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I really don't think we need to define the difference between scofftic and skeptic. Skeptics are logical, scofftics are not. That's how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Please explain your definitions of skeptic and scoftic because to be honest it seems that, to you, a skeptic is anyone who agrees with your particular skeptical viewpoint and a scoftic is anyone who doesn't, as demonstrated by your posts on this thread. Saskeptic and Ray G certainly are not scoftics, as it has been defined to me, but these are the gentlemen who have been the target of your insults and condescension. Both have been members here for years and obviously have an interest in the subject other than just poking at bigfooters. I've been involved in many discussions on this very board about what is and what is not a scoftic and it seems the definition is on a sliding scale depending on who is using that particular derogatory term at any particular time. I think it's just an attempt at getting away with insulting someone in a way that the user feels is socially acceptable here, even though it isn't. Maybe an alternate definition of the word scoftic could be one who scoffs at skeptics because that is far more prevalent here than the original Roger Knights' definition. Blackdog I remember you from before, not without regret. I disagree with the assertion that I have abused anyone, though I will admit to abstaining from the usual reverence where certain people are concerned. In the one instance where I was judged to have insulted someone, I was guilty of using an excess of florid imagery to suggest that someone had buried their head in the sand -- fairly benign as insults go IMHO. And I note that this sentiment has subsequently been broadcast as a general concern without censure. So shame on me for directing it at a particular person. I agree with your characterization that Saskeptic and RayG are representative of the 'good skeptic' for the most part. I just think they have a little too much faith in the transcendent power of science. Perhaps they should re-read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to remind themselves of what it takes to overcome a paradigm that has ossified? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) Blackdog I remember you from before, not without regret. Nice... more insults. Is it possible that you can have a discussion without insults and condescension? Please answer my question on your definition of scoftic... thanks. Edited December 20, 2011 by Blackdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Nice... more insults. Is it possible that you can have a discussion without insults and condescension? Please answer my question on your definition of scoftic... thanks. Blackdog I was not insulting you, merely recollecting. As your prior post to me was little more than a hatchet job with some Spanish Inquisition thrown in for spice, why is it an outrage that I don't recall our prior interactions fondly? Still, in the interests of harmony and fraternity, I am happy to comply with your request. I define a scofftic as someone that has no interest in the subject of BF beyond belittling and destroying the people who take the matter seriously and/or are trying to investigate it. I commend Saskeptic for getting out there and being a part of the investigation, even if I am not sure we view the matter in the same light. And skepticism is a necessary part of any scientific endeavor, but I think there are those who go way, way overboard. And yes, it irritates me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Blackdog I was not insulting you, merely recollecting. As your prior post to me was little more than a hatchet job with some Spanish Inquisition thrown in for spice, why is it an outrage that I don't recall our prior interactions fondly? LOL, evidently you have a flair for the dramatic. Spanish Inquisition and outrage? Nothing like making something out of nothing. To be honest, I don't remember interacting with you either in this incarnation or your previous one as MOI which was pointed out in this thread previously. Maybe you can shake my memory. Still, in the interests of harmony and fraternity, I am happy to comply with your request. I define a scofftic as someone that has no interest in the subject of BF beyond belittling and destroying the people who take the matter seriously and/or are trying to investigate it. I commend Saskeptic for getting out there and being a part of the investigation, even if I am not sure we view the matter in the same light. And skepticism is a necessary part of any scientific endeavor, but I think there are those who go way, way overboard. And yes, it irritates me.But yet you treated Saskeptic and Ray like the ones you so vilify. But I won't beat a dead horse and trust that you'll mind your manners in the future, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 LOL, evidently you have a flair for the dramatic. Spanish Inquisition and outrage? Nothing like making something out of nothing. To be honest, I don't remember interacting with you either in this incarnation or your previous one as MOI which was pointed out in this thread previously. Maybe you can shake my memory. . But yet you treated Saskeptic and Ray like the ones you so vilify. But I won't beat a dead horse and trust that you'll mind your manners in the future, Blackdog, Godspeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Bless you and yours and Merry Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Blackdog I remember you from before, not without regret. Nice... more insults. Is it possible that you can have a discussion without insults and condescension? Please answer my question on your definition of scoftic... thanks. Jeebus, mighty thin skin. You consider remembering you not without regret an insult? Psaw. Really? Methinks you doth protest too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Consider all you want. I actually don't care what you think. Psaw. Really? Methinks you doth protest too much. Got anything else? Otherwise it's the same thing you always say. Especially the last part, it's old and tired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I have to pee, but it won't be here tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 It takes about 20 seconds to find this information on Wikipedia: Aristotle, who lived in the fourth century B.C., already described a large squid, which he called teuthus, distinguishing it from the smaller squid, the teuthis. He mentions that "of the calamaries the so-called teuthus is much bigger than the teuthis; for teuthi [plural of teuthus] have been found as much as five ells long."[23] Pliny the Elder, living in the first century A.D., also described a gigantic squid in his Natural History, with the head "as big as a cask", arms 30 feet (9.1 m) long, and carcass weighing 700 pounds (320 kg).[21][24][25] It's unclear to me if Aristotle examined any specimens directly, but from this reference it seems obvious that Pliny did. Yes, this was long before "science" as an institution was really formalized in the 18th Century, so the uber-pedantic could make the case that giant squid were "unknown to science" despite Aristotle's and Pliny's descriptions of these creatures. (Who's the scoftic now?) But for the sake of exploring the point further, I'll go along and assume for the moment that neither Aristotle nor Pliny actually examined specimens firsthand. Well, what about Steenstrup? Is there something about his description that makes giant squid qualify as a cryptid? Note that additional digging on my part indicates the date for Steenstrup's description as 1875 instead of 1857, but apparently Steenstrup had published on the genus in the 1850s. Either Wikipedia has the date of the publication wrong or the authors of the attached paper do or for some reason the later date is the accepted description date among specialists. For an added dose of conservatism, I'll go with 1875. According to our friends at Wikipedia, there were at least 89 animals described in 1875. That list includes Madagascar Serpent Eagle, Short-tailed Stingray, and Japanese Macaque. Are these and the 86 other species all cryptids? Again, what makes giant squid a cryptid? I couldn't be more accommodating in this discussion as I've given up 19 centuries of recorded history in its initial description. I'm willing to push the description date all the way up to 1875. Even then, we're talking about a creature that was described 136 years ago. (I wonder if president Grant read the paper? It probably wouldn't be outlandish to picture a 17 year old Teddy Roosevelt learning of the publication.) Giant squid fails the cryptid test. But what of Exnihilo's particular spin on cryptids as species for which those that studied them were ostracized by the scientific community? I've asked several times for evidence that even this applies to the giant squid. Again, by Exnihilo's own definition of cryptid, giant squid is not one. For those interested in learning more about giant squid, enjoy the attached paper. MartinsandPerez2009.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts