Why Do Some Want To Believe So Much?

[Guest]

For me I do not accept that BF exists based on the evidence as it stands presently and therefore do not believe. However I do think it is possible based on the evidence thus far and would like nothing more than there to be something as unbelievable as an undiscovered ape/ hominid creature in North America.

As Bipto said earlier and I agree “I think there's a deep-seated need in many people to want to think we haven't figured everything out.â€

How great would it be for there to be something of substance behind this BF mystery?

To have vindication for those who have been ridiculed for sharing their encounters?

And to possibly know if the PGF’s “Patty†is indeed a real flesh and blood creature?

Until the day comes I will remain skeptical but intrigued by the stories, possibilities and people behind the very real phenomena that is Bigfoot.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

That's really a great question. I think most people would like to beleive that there's a little mystery left in this modern age. Most would like to beleive that there are new discoveries still out there yet to be made by science, and there are. I personally know now that these creatures exist but it wasn't always that way. I started out a skeptic with the hope there was something to this mystery, it took an actual sighting to convince me 100% they do indeed exist. Until a body is brought in, I'm sure the fence sitters will remain unconvinced no matter what. That's fine by me, I was a fence sitter myself once.

[Guest]

Well, critical thinking works both ways doesnt it? I mean, it isn't relegated to the skeptical stance as a means to disprove the existence of BF.

As someone who has spent a vast portion of their life in the woods, I am familiar with what is out there. I could apply critical thinking to explain a sighting and come up with an entirely different conclusion than an outright skeptic IMO.

IOW's, critical thinking should not be a trump card for skeptics alone.

[BeachFoot]

I honestly hope that the overall membership here doesn't share those feelings. Critical thinking is essential when looking at this subject. If that is the prevailing feeling here I don't think this new forum has any chance of succeeding.

The only reason I can think of to not accept critical thinking as part of this is if you just want to blindly believe every story that comes down the pike including the Georgia hoax (no offence my Georgian friends), the Marx hoaxes, porcupines in trees being bandied about as baby sasquatches and all the other BS that has been proven to be anything but related to sasquatch.

The basic history of this subject clearly shows the importance of critical thinking no matter what side of the fence you sit on or straddle.

Sorry if I made you barf Beachfoot, I'll just have to owe you a bottle of Pepto-Bismol.

Cool yer jets, BD. In a sense, you're preaching to the choir here. I'm a firm believer in looking at an issue...any issue, not just the Bigfoot mystery...from every possible angle. Gathering data, analyzing it from all sides and taking care to come to an judicious, well informed conclusion. I think it not only applies here, but it's an extremely valuable life skill.

I think that blind faith is foolish. I also believe to simply state that "Bigfoot doesn't exist" is arrogant.

I have zero issue with the process of what you like to call "critical thinking". What makes me ill is when I see the term used, as it is all too frequently on many forums that I visit, in order for someone to justify or attempt to convince folks that their opinion should weigh more because they are a "critical thinker". It's like the latest buzzword. It's over used, it's old and tired. Moreso, it's more often than not used by some people to justify a blatant dismissal of someone else's thoughts or beliefs.

Critical thought or critical thinking is a process, not a person. It's nothing new, nothing all that special...anyone can do it... and the capability of someone to perform that process, in my opinon, doesn't make their thoughts, feelings or opinion any more valuable or important than anyone else's is this quest.

...edited to add the little smiley dude....just cuz I think he's cool!

[southernyahoo]

I think skeptical people who have a certainty that BF does not exist should do a little more critical thinking about what skepticism really is, because it is not a position of certainty.

[Guest]

I believe when we apply critical thought to this phenomenon, we might try also using logic, like maybe the Laws of Bivalence, to include contradiction. Something either is or it isnt.

ahh i know, not an easy proposition with regards to proving or disproving the existence of a hairy Biped, that has somehow eluded us. Or has it?

But the question as to why some want to believe so much, is less about the technical data involved, and more at the emotional side of our brains. The folks who have actually seen these creatures, dont need much more convincing. And then there's guys like my Older brother, he and i witnessed an unknown primate, in the Winter of 1979, in Florida, and he immediately dismissed it as not what it was. he couldnt accept it. And to this day he scoffs at the mention of it. So I dont bring it up with him. I bring it up here because he doesnt want to believe at all. Doesnt even think about the possibility of an unknown, biped, walking upright, human like. And he witnessed one! Kooky, Huh? Thats how varied and kooky this field of study is. Gotta love that.

[VAfooter]

While I do not know that BF exists, having never seen one, I certainly strongly believe it to based on the circumstantial evidence. Too many reports by too many people over too many years with nothing to gain. Plus, I consider the PGF to be real evidence as well. While open to possibility that BF may not exist, I tend to think that the possibility is very small. I judge each report I read on it's own merits. Some are much more credible than others.

[Guest]

...what drives people who have not had a suspected encounter to want to believe in what seems to be such a controversial topic?

...

Romanticism and adventure. It's like pirate booty, the Dutchman's lost mine, etc. BF is emotive.

[Guest Ambermae]

I'm not against critical thinking, i'm just fed up of some people using it as a excuse to attack a believer or Bigfoot! I haven't seen it here but in some forums 'critical thinkers' talk to people who believe like there's something wrong with them. Thats when i get kinda tired of the phrase.

[Guest]

I'm not against critical thinking, i'm just fed up of some people using it as a excuse to attack a believer or Bigfoot! I haven't seen it here but in some forums 'critical thinkers' talk to people who believe like there's something wrong with them. Thats when i get kinda tired of the phrase.

I think what happens is that we often encounter statements from people who tie some relatively mundane event to bigfoot. These people might be uncritically accepting (or creating) a bigfoot explanation for something without demonstrating that they had taken great pains to rule out far more likely explanations (as one should do when practicing good critical thinking).

For example, we've got a thread here that links to a video in which folks found a skunk carcass and a piece of broken pvc pipe in a hayfield. Their conclusion? A bigfoot trapped the skunk in the pipe, punched both hands through the pipe, carried the pipe around a bit, extracted the skunk, and removed its scent glands, leaving the rest of the carcass mostly intact. Did they find something odd? Perhaps, but they also have made several shark-jumping leaps to develop their bigfoot story, while far more likely explanations have apparently not been entertained at all. (For details, check out the thread here: .) Those may be really nice folks in the video, but they have not demonstrated critical thinking in this case. There are lots of cases of this, for example every "stick structure" ever tied to bigfoot activity.

That said, it's true that some folks come to their overall belief in bigfoot based on a tremendous amount of critical thinking. While I may not agree with their conclusion and might find flaws in their approach to evaluating what they consider to be critical pieces of evidence, it is unfair to say that they haven't thought critically about the subject matter. I do the same things LeBron does when we both shoot 10-foot jumpers, but his look a lot better than mine and a lot more of them make it through the hoop. Same process, different result.

[Guest Llawgoch]

That said, it's true that some folks come to their overall belief in bigfoot based on a tremendous amount of critical thinking. While I may not agree with their conclusion and might find flaws in their approach to evaluating what they consider to be critical pieces of evidence, it is unfair to say that they haven't thought critically about the subject matter. I do the same things LeBron does when we both shoot 10-foot jumpers, but his look a lot better than mine and a lot more of them make it through the hoop. Same process, different result.

I don't really think there's any justification for anyone believing Bigfoot exists unless they think they've seen one themselves and are trusting in their eyes and their own judgements. Although I might think they've made a mistake, that's a reasonable thing for them to be doing. And maybe Bigfoot is out there and they have seen him, and if it's ever proved, they'll know they were right for the right reasons.

Anyone who believes in bigfoot based on the publicly available evidence is going to be right for the wrong reasons even if a body is brought in tomorrow. Although I personally view the possibility as vanishingly small, Bigfoot just might be out there. The evidence certainly isn't.

[Guest Ambermae]

saskeptic,

I agree with what you say , i just feel personally that if someone want's to believe in Bigfoot then they should be allowed to do so without other's implying they aren't intelligent enough to think for themselves. As i said, i haven't seen it here so far and i hope i won't see it either.

[Guest ShadowPrime]

I reread the original question, and I think it could, perhaps, use some clarification. Are we being asked why some seem to (maybe) be so emotionally invested in the idea that BF MUST "be real"? Or are we being asked why some seem to enjoy the idea that maybe BF is "out there"? Different things, I think. Or are we being asked why someone who hasn't had a sighting would believe in BF? That, too, is quite different.

Personally, I admit - I do enjoy a good mystery, and I suppose I am the sort of person who also enjoys the sense that there are still some colorful, unusual, "surprises" out there. That is an emotional reaction, an emotional inclination. HOWEVER, I don't think that suggests I, or others who have that inclination, check brains at the door. I like to think I am fairly skeptical/careful in general, and, being aware of my inclinations, I am doubly careful to assess WHY I think/feel the way I do on a given topic (including BF).

So while I admit ...I do "like" the idea of BF being out there... that doesn't mean I simply swallow, hook line and sinker, every new claim, every blurry photo, etc. And no offense to anyone, I do think that if BF IS out there, it is an animal, not a phantom, not a ghost, not a transdimensional shapeshifter or the like. And when some new piece to the puzzle is offered up, I examine it critically, and respond accordingly. As best I can.

I guess I consider myself affectionately skeptical on the subject. Cautiously openminded. Guardedly optimistic. Leaning to the "BF is real" side of that fence.

Shadow

[Guest fenris]

One man's critical thinking appears to be painting yourself into a corner from another perspective. There are critical thinking skills which need to be used if you think you have seen something, but irrational rationalization isn't critical thinking.

I would just like to say I hope this place doesnt end up as a dumping ground between the academia stained skeptics and their opponents.

[Guest Spazmo]

I would just like to say I hope this place doesnt end up as a dumping ground between the academia stained skeptics and their opponents.

Or, how about this:

"I would just like to say I hope this place doesn't end up as a dumping ground between the skeptics and their opponents."

I'd like to see the BFF 2.0 evolve into a friendlier place than other forums, and friendlier than some parts of it had become before the "reboot". Tone, attitude, delivery of points, these are things we can all help improve.