Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

"belief In" Or "acceptance Of"

Recommended Posts

Guest

No, I support that Bigfoot might be real because of all kinds of various forms of evidence. I don't believe Bigfoot is real just because I like the idea of Bigfoot.

Okay, so you are like the rest of the people who believe in Bigfoot then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oonjerah

Quote Mounty: "belief in something implies a matter of faith and/or supernaturalism

because there is no evidence to support the claim."

I stand corrected. "Faith" is not religion.

I never once said anything about religion. Religion is not allowed to be discussed here. I'm sure people who do not subscribe to faith can still have belief in things. For example, I believe my son hasn't stolen any cars, because I have no proof to the contrary, but I can't be certain he hasn't. So sometimes I guess its better to say "I don't know" as opposed to "I believe".

For me, saying "I believe in Bigfoot" is like a short way of saying, Yup, I believe Bigfoot exists, but don't ask me why because I have no reason for why I believe.

Faith is belief, but belief isn't necessarily faith.

I see one's belief including the things we know. Facts, things we can prove, things a rational

mind holds to be true.

Edited by Oonjerah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Maybe its because of my profession and how laws and case law have been beaten in to my way of thinking. For example, if I stand up in court and say "I believe that the accused ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol" the case would be thrown out. However, if I stood up and said "I formed the opinion that the accused ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol based on the following grounds..." that person would probably go to jail.

I suppose this is why communication is so important to me, and I have a hard time understanding people when they say one thing, but mean another.

I'm sorry for starting the thread. I guess I'm unique and I'm sorry for unintentionally pushing buttons for those whose buttons got pushed.

Edited by Mounty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyO
SSR Team

BobbyO, you indicate that it's OK believe in Bigfoot if you've seen one. But those who

can believe without seeing one are pretty gullible.

That's offensive.

Perhaps those who can credit Bf based on evidence are simply more rational and open

minded than the average person.

Life's offensive a lot of the time Oonjerah, i'm sure you'll get over it.

But to be fair, i never said anything like what you're suggesting i said and most importantly i never said that people who have seen a Sasquatch believe in Sasquatch.

People believe that the Houston Texans will win the Superbowl this year, but they don't know.

People believe that Aliens have landed on Earth, but they don't know.

People who have seen a Sasquatch or maybe those that are confident enough to have seen evidence that they know is from of them, don't need to believe in Sasquatch existence, because they know of their existence.

There's a VERY big difference i the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Life's offensive a lot of the time Oonjerah, i'm sure you'll get over it.

But to be fair, i never said anything like what you're suggesting i said and most importantly i never said that people who have seen a Sasquatch believe in Sasquatch.

People believe that the Houston Texans will win the Superbowl this year, but they don't know.

People believe that Aliens have landed on Earth, but they don't know.

People who have seen a Sasquatch or maybe those that are confident enough to have seen evidence that they know is from of them, don't need to believe in Sasquatch existence, because they know of their existence.

There's a VERY big difference i the two.

Wow, that was well written. Thank you BobbyO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes, there is a continuum of thought on the matter. I use the following,rough scale, which can be adapted to any branch of phenomenonology:

Knowers: those who have had personal experience to establish the existence of the phenomenon beyond all doubt ("I know BF exists because I saw one and am absolutely certain of what I saw.")

Proponents: those who have either had personal experience or are sufficiently convinced by the evidence currently on proffer but who entertain some doubt ("I am reasonably certain that BF exists or may exist because of personal experience and/or the quantity and quality of evidence available at the present time. I am also willing to entertain the idea that I could be mistaken.")

skeptics (small s): those who are not prepared to take a either a favorable or unfavorable position on the phenomenon and seek further information ("I am not willing to say that I think it possible BF exists, NOR am I willing to say the opposite. I would like to see more evidence before I take a position either way.")

Skeptics (capital S): those who are firmly disinclined to accept the phenomenon and who would require extensive evidence to change their position ("I do not accept the likelihood that BF exists. I would be willing to change my mind, but it would take an extremely large amount of high-quality evidence to convince me to do so.")

Denialists/Scofftics: those who take an absolute position against the validity of the phenomenon to the point that they ridicule even the attempt to obtain evidence to the contrary ("BF does not exist, and the study of such is only undertaken by liars, the delusional, and the uneducated.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oonjerah

I have "belief In" Or "acceptance Of" Sasquatch. I am not 100% sure of his

existence and have never seen one in person.

"I think therefore I am." ~Descartes

I interpret that as: I can't even prove that I exist.

I woke up crabby and snappish today. Will attempt to be more -- congenial now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyO
SSR Team

I have "belief In" Or "acceptance Of" Sasquatch. I am not 100% sure of his

existence

There's probably just as many " her " in existence anyway..;)

Plus 1 for Mulder.

& thank you Mounty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Holliday

it doesn't really bother me if "belief" is used, usually its not hard to figure out what was meant.

but to call someone a "bleever" does seem to be a no-no in the BF world.

when leveled at you from a scoffing individual it does seem insulting to some,so i think it depends on the intentions/directions of the conversation.

maybe best to just use proponent & leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explorer

I also understand the common usage of the word “belief†for anomalistic topics and it does not give me heartburn.

Nonetheless, when I investigate anomalistic topics my preference is to use Bayesian epistemology.

Bayesian epistemology helps you calculate degrees of belief or confidence level amongst the different competing hypotheses.

By their very nature, anomalistic topics cannot yield knowledge with 100% certainty. If they did, then they would not be considered anomalies and would be part of the dogma considered “knownâ€.

What I say when people ask my opinion on BF is:

Given all the available evidence, the likelihood that the “BF is a real physical creature†hypothesis is X%, and the likelihood of hypothesis B is Y% and likelihood of hypothesis C is Z%, and so forth.

If one hypothesis has higher likelihood than another and increases my confidence level, then that is where my belief lies conditionally on new evidence.

I can understand why people who have seen a BF are calling themselves knowers and not believers.

They are claiming to be 100% certain that their own BF hypothesis is true.

But I wonder if all these knowers fully agree among themselves on the hypothesis that they are so certain about (BF is hominid, wood ape, psychic being, friendly buddy,wildman, interdimensional being, ET, shapeshifter shaman, etc.).

If you ask knowers, you might find out that they are not that certain of their BF knowledge. (For example, I have interviewed people who have seen BF within 15 ft and claim that BF is an inter-dimensional being because it disappeared in front of them. They are 100% certain that BF is real because they saw it with their own eyes.)

Given the way I think about this subject, (and for full disclosure I have never seen a BF) seeing one does not provide enough confidence to be 100% certain of which is the correct hypothesis.

It does provide enough confidence to say that an unknown creature that was not supposed to exist was seen but it does not tell us anything about it provenance (origin), sustenance, relationship to humans/apes, etc.

I feel this way because I have seen other anomalies (that are impossible) and I am not 100% certain of any of the explanatory hypotheses.

So seeing is not believing, for me. It simply increases the likelihood of one hypothesis vs. another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest poignant

+1 from me Mulder, skeptical proponent here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I agree with a lot that has been posted.

It may be "just" semantics, but as a writer, words matter!

Actually one of the things that attracted me to this board was some of the terminology used. I like the concept of being a "knower." Fact is, I am not a "knower," but I recognize those that consider themselves such have experienced something I have not, and therein lies an opportunity for me to learn something.

By the scale listed above, I would probably fall into the "proponent" category. I accept the possibility - actually, perhaps likelihod is a better word there - that these creature inhabit wide areas of North America. There may not be many of them, but they are there. I'm not sure proponent is exactly the right word, but it does fit. Acceptor just sounds awkward.

I aspire to be a "knower," how's that?

As for the word belief, that does fall into a faith-based idealogy for me, one that implies acceptance of another's word at face value without critical examination of the evidence, so I personally try to avoid it.

But, at the same time, if someone says "Yeah, I believe/don't believe in bigfoot," I'm not going to go all grammar lawyer on them.

Interesting topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1980squatch

Intersting thread Mounty, and another +1 for Mulder when I can. As a Knower, I would struggle with using the term believer for myself.

Do I sense a poll coming on??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Explorer makes a valid enough point. Knowing that there is a BF is one thing. Knowing exactly what that thing is is another matter entirely.

I know that a large, bipedal, hair covered something that is not currently "confirmed" by Science exists, because I clearly and unequivocally saw one.

Is it a man, an ape, or some sort of hybrid? I do not know. I have a hypothesis.

Does it have "paranatural" abilities? I do not know. I have a hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I am not sure why you would ant to parse "believe" out of the usage. It may have some odd connotations by having links to other ephemeral or non-tangible/esoteric things that people may "believe" in such as ghosts, god(s), pyramid power, etc etc. When dealing with a split audience, or one that is conversant in all things BF, and one that is mundane in its outlook and does not discuss let alone think about BF, is where the real issues with both the connotations associated with "belief" and the communicative variances between the BF and "mundane" communities have discrepancies and difference.

Unfortunately, when one is discussing a topic with an uninterested audience, or someone with a divergent hypothesis, such as in this case of someone who doubts (to any degree) the existence of BF discussing BF with a Knower or a Hopeful, then there will be significant issue simply in verbiage and usage.

The connotation of "belief" in this case is a poor one, as it links BF and "believers" with various abstruse or arcane topics, and I think that denies some of the legitimacy that many of us are attempting to bring to the study and discovery of BF. Rather than having a reasonable conversation with someone, they may simply rely on the everything from ad hominem attacks regarding the stupidity of anyone who might "believe" in BF, to their immediately accusing that person of also believing in something which may be patently ridiculous, or stretch what would be a credible belief in something such as a large bi-pedal North American Ape or Hominin ( Hominim Family Tree, part of EVOLUTION at Harvard Museum of Natural History)- like an extant creature, to include paranormal abilities that some people and dis-believers might try to associate with BF in order to assert their "belief" that BF is "silly, childish, or irrational".

Belief is a strong word, and probably one of the most powerful and weighty words in the English language, simply through its being associated with religious "beliefs", political "beliefs", and moralistic "beliefs".

I can understand the trepidation someone may have in wanting to apply belief to BF, but it is a word that unfortunately works.

St. G-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...