Guest DWA Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 On 12/20/2012 at 1:39 PM, Guest said: A recent news article states that 1/3 of the people who live in the PNW "Believe in Bigfoot". This got me thinking about the language we use in our unique community... Personally, I hate using the words Believe/Belief when discussing the existence of Bigfoot. In my humble opinion, and I might be wrong, belief in something implies a matter of faith and/or supernaturalism because there is no evidence to support the claim. Regarding Bigfoot there is no need for belief, as there are various forms of evidence to support the theory of its existence. This evidence includes an anthropologic litany of relic hominids, some known to have lived along side humans many years ago, and a geologic history that supports migration to North America via the bering land bridge. Therefore, I suggest, instead of stating a belief or disbelief in Bigfoot we should actually be stating an acceptance or a rejection of Bigfoot; an acceptance or rejection that it is possible that Bigfoot could exist. And, we should base our position on available evidence, testimonies and established scientific knowledge, not based on faith and hope. So, which term best suits you? And please correct me if I'm wrong or if you have a different opinion. ^^^That's me. Read that. Evidence is how the scientist evaluates *everything.* Belief-in is not how the scientist addresses *anything.* The iron test of the scientist is what she says to someone who tells her he saw a unicorn. Reading that...you should understand why. My only very minor demurrer is "rejection that it is possible that Bigfoot could exist." There is no way, based on evidence available, that a true scientist can do that. In fact, a true scientist can *never* reject the existence of something. Why people say "you can't prove a negative." (Bigfoot skeptics undermine their argument with that very phrase.)
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 (edited) On 6/23/2017 at 11:48 AM, DWA said: ^^^That's me. Read that. Evidence is how the scientist evaluates *everything.* Belief-in is not how the scientist addresses *anything.* The iron test of the scientist is what she says to someone who tells her he saw a unicorn. Reading that...you should understand why. My only very minor demurrer is "rejection that it is possible that Bigfoot could exist." There is no way, based on evidence available, that a true scientist can do that. In fact, a true scientist can *never* reject the existence of something. Why people say "you can't prove a negative." (Bigfoot skeptics undermine their argument with that very phrase.) Same stuff IMO 78 more posts to go folks!!! Edited June 25, 2017 by AaronD Bring to compliance.
gigantor Posted June 25, 2017 Admin Posted June 25, 2017 6 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said: Same crap. Different pile thread. Oh, you really killed his argument with that one! Not
Recommended Posts