"belief In" Or "acceptance Of"

[Guest]

^Technically true, George, but unfortunately "belief" and "believer(s)" in phenomenonological contexts is definitely a perjorative, used by the Denialist/Scofftic camp (and some Skeptics) to denote acceptance of the phenomenon at hand for reasons of faith (despite evidence that "faith" is unfounded, they would contend). It is an allegation of irrationality (as "critical thinkers" define it).

[Guest]

^ Mulder, I agree 100%, hence my description of the connotative meaning of "belief" especially in regards to its derogatory usage by denialists/scofftics/skeptics, i.e. it is an allegation of irrationality.

The trouble is that for the average individual, given their limited scope of communicative skills and verbiage (let's break down and say most people don't go past the 2nd definition in the dictionary- or as I recall being told in school don't write past the 3rd grade level for regular communications), uses the word belief to both uplift themselves in terms for their personal spiritual, political, and moralistic endeavors, and then in turnabout uses a double standard to show that belief can outline the ideas of others in a negative fashion.

Their "irrational beliefs" are ok, but heaven forbid you have your own non-standard or even heretical "beliefs" because anything outside the norm, no matter the basis in fact or the logical extrapolation thereof (often as opposed to their own "beliefs" having little or no similar basis), means that you (and me) fail in their perceptive light. Our "beliefs" make us abnormal.

It really is ludicrous, is it not?

St. G-

Edited December 22, 2012 by St. George

[Guest Kerchak]

I always thought the word 'believe' just means "accept as true". At least, that's what it says in my dictionary.....so I don't have a problem with the word.

Edit. I use the word 'believe' in my every day language, for example "I believe you are right about blah blah blah".

Edited December 22, 2012 by Kerchak

[Guest]

I always thought the word 'believe' just means "accept as true". At least, that's what it says in my dictionary.....so I don't have a problem with the word.

Edit. I use the word 'believe' in my every day language, for example "I believe you are right about blah blah blah".

Hmm... Good point. I suppose my issue may be with the word "in" as opposed to "that". Because if 'believe' means 'accept as true', then I don't believe "in" Bigfoot, but I believe "that" Bigfoot could exist based on facts.

In other words, if 'Belief = Accept as True' then :

I do accept as truth in Bigfoot. This statement doesn't make any sense.

I do accept as truth that Bigfoot could exist based on facts. This statement does make sense.

So phrasing it that way, I guess it is a matter of semantics, said Mounty as he wipes the egg off his face.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Mounty

[Guest]

The phrase "believe in bigfoot" is not very accurate. By that we mean think it exists.

Others might think it implies a faith as in a faith in God ...at any rate, it's a little ambiguous.

And you might believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, but this is not the same meaning we intend in "believe in bigfoot." So, there is another issue.

Believe might be too strong, but accept is too weak.

As I see it....

Some know bf is real, some think bf is real, just a normal creature--some think it is unreal--some think it is real /supernatural. Some are just unsure.

So

know it's real...........think it's real.................. wu/real,.................... not sure ...........just not real.

field witness...........armchair witness........... surrealists.................seekers...........skeptic

something like that......(shrug)

Edited December 22, 2012 by Kings Canyon

[Guest]

@ George: I'll take that amplification. +1

[Oonjerah]

This discussion reminds me that, by now, there are a few quite

ordinary words that I now avoid using ... I didn't like the tone of

voice that came with speaking them. Eventually the words took

on a negative implication to me, so I trained them out of my

vocabulary.

Words do have a lot of power. Shall I always be so careful as to

how I use them?

"Them are fightin' words, Mister!!" ~from a dozen ancient Western movies.

[Guest Cowlitz2]

Believe IS NOT EQUAL TO Know

For Me - It is OK to act on BELIEF without KNOWING...when you think about it, that is what we do in a greater part of our daily activities. For those that have studied philosophy (an elective course that made me look at things differently) using the If - Then approach, then one gets a clearer understanding of the terms Belief vs Know.

Even in the world of Science the accepted "Known" is sometimes proven wrong (my field in Nuclear Physics), which can serve as a caution for us all not to jump from Belief to Know too quickly. For those of you who have seen BF, you are in a small-select group of folks that I look up to. As for me I choose to believe most of you in this Forum, when you say you have seen BF. It takes guts to stand up to the arm-chair critics, which is why many are reluctant to come forward. I was shocked when I started researching this with the large numbers of reports that had gone through an interview/documentation process. I can only imagine that group is < 10% of the many unreported sightings.

There will always be hoaxers and undisciplined critics in any technical field. I have more recently, tried to learn from the educated critic that puts in an honest effort to prove something is wrong. The DNA effort will likely be a make or break for many that hasn't experienced BF first hand.

Personally - I would like to have see one during my younger years when hiking/camping/hunting/fishing was something I did a lot of.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Cowlitz2

[Guest]

I prefer Acceptance of.

[Oonjerah]

"I accept the existence of Bigfoot."

I have an unwelcome negative attitude about the phrase. My bad.

I accepted Bigfoot along about 1960, high school, as I was reading

Sanderson's Abominable Snowmen.

By the time I was done reading, I really liked the idea, and felt the

evidence was sound. Had I been reading a book that said and nearly

proved that Triceratops still lives in the Amazon rain forest, I'd have

liked that even better.

Incurable romantic. More feeling than intellect in this.

Fact is, I don't accept, I embrace Bigfoot.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Oonjerah

[Guest Cowlitz2]

Isn't that being a bit rude Oonierah?

[Oonjerah]

^ If you mean the embracing, no -- I don't think it's rude.

It's figurative, not literal embracing, so cannot offend Bf unless he reads this forum.

Bigfoot, I don't mean to be rude to you!!

Edited December 23, 2012 by Oonjerah

[Guest Cowlitz2]

OK...sorry Oonierah

[Guest Theagenes]

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.")

To this I would add the proponent equilivent of "Skofftic."

Apologists: those who take an absolute position in support of BF's existence and also refuse to accept that others could still have doubts to the point that they ridicule and shout down any attempt to suggest flaws in even the most questionable evidence. ("I don't care that the BCM tracks look just like Wallace stompers. That doesn't prove anything. That just means that Wallace carved his stompers to look like real tracks. Are you calling John Green a liar?! How dare you!")

The apologists seem to mostly live in the PGF forum from what I've gathered.

[Guest]

Just to chide in here, me and my wife have a running dispute about the exsistance of Sasquatch. She really goes off if I say "believe in" and I point out to her that I DO NOT have"Faith in " . Believe seems to have a conotation of it could be. As a knower I really don't believe I know and therefore I accept the fact that it is.