Guest Cervelo Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) What's the 0.1% evidence that you think is good? You'll find this shocking I'm sure. Daylight sighting, within 50yrds or so by very experienced outdoorsmen get my attention. The reason being there are only a few choices. John Cartwright's report I always felt was compelling even though I don't think at the time he had a lot of outdoor experience. Although I feel eyewitness is the least reliable testimony, heck I've got two categories now pre Finding Bigfoot and post, all post are completely disregarded. Edited December 23, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 There are two equally disturbing mentalities. "I believe and you have to believe also" and "I don't believe and you can't believe either" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 ^This. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagniAesir Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I think most skeptics actually believe, they just aren't going to admit they believe until there is solid, irrefutable evidence. I can't speak for others but in my case you are wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 You'll find this shocking I'm sure. Daylight sighting, within 50yrds or so by very experienced outdoorsmen get my attention. The reason being there are only a few choices. John Cartwright's report I always felt was compelling even though I don't think at the time he had a lot of outdoor experience. Although I feel eyewitness is the least reliable testimony, heck I've got two categories now pre Finding Bigfoot and post, all post are completely disregarded. Eyewitness accounts that are close, in broad daylight, for extended periods of time, and by folks that aren't prone to hyperbole, those are the ones that get my attention. Do you have a link to JC's report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Eyewitness accounts that are close, in broad daylight, for extended periods of time, and by folks that aren't prone to hyperbole, those are the ones that get my attention. Do you have a link to JC's report? Here ya go... http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=3335 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Carrying on with the idea of a "continuum" of skepticism, I see three main groups of BF "seriously": skeptics (small "s") - seeking more evidence before rendering judgement who take the process of critical thinking itself seriously Skeptics (captial "S") - inclined to disbelieve but still taking the process or CT itself seriously Scofftics/Denialists - intellectual thugs who don't accept [x], and who don't give a rat's rear about CT but are pushing their agenda under the aegis of "truth" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Seeing IS believing.......I don't care if your a believer or a skeptic or anything in between. But one must understand that just because you have seen one yourself doesn't mean that it will be a compelling story for some body else. I have never seen one, but I have seen bipedal tracks which I nor my father could explain. I've never lived in a city except for two years while going to college in Spokane. So I guess I would consider myself a "skeptical believer" of sorts. But skeptics have the weight of modern science, and the fact we do not have a type specimen to offer in their corner. Anecdotal evidence to a scientist is a paper tiger........and add to that there is no fossil record for it? Pretty tough sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMBigfoot Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 heck I've got two categories now pre Finding Bigfoot and post, all post are completely disregarded. I agree 100% with you on that Cervelo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 "Why Do Skeptics Take Bigfoot Seriously?" The question is worded on an assumption. And that is that all skeptics take Bigfoot the possible creature seriously. Many don't. But some might take the subject of BF seriously, in that they find it interesting how and why non-"knowers" believe. Rockape ~ "I think most skeptics actually believe, they just aren't going to admit they believe until there is solid, irrefutable evidence." Uhh.....er.....are you new here??? Oonjerah "They are wasting their time on us Proponents." It's sad if this is true. Non-"knowing" proponents should have open minds too, like they implore skeptics to have, and willing to change them accordingly. But fear not. I am not sad because I know it is actually not a waste of time. I was a tried and true proponent who changed his mind in part by a few skeptical arguments. True, the skeptical arguments weren't the sole reason. I have done years of research both academically and in the field. I have not come to my conclusion that BF most likely does not exist lightly or flippantly. But I am also perfectly willing, and even wanting to, accept (trying hard to remember how Mulder put it) that there is enough evidence to 'conclusively proof' BF exists. indiefoot ~ "There are two equally disturbing mentalities. I believe and you have to believe also" and "I don't believe and you can't believe either" Sure. Those are two disturbing ones. But there are many more mentalities on this board that are reasonable and not disturbing at all let us not forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Carrying on with the idea of a "continuum" of skepticism, I see three main groups of BF "seriously": skeptics (small "s") - seeking more evidence before rendering judgement who take the process of critical thinking itself seriously Skeptics (captial "S") - inclined to disbelieve but still taking the process or CT itself seriously Scofftics/Denialists - intellectual thugs who don't accept [x], and who don't give a rat's rear about CT but are pushing their agenda under the aegis of "truth" So by those categories I probably waffle back and forth between little "s" and capital "S." Just out of curiousity, Mulder, what sort of categories would you assign to the proponents side? I see the terms "knower" and "believer" used quite a bit. Are there other categories? Is there a category on the proponent side that is the equivilent of "Scofftic"? That is, someone who uncritically accepts any evidence that supports their agenda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 But skeptics have the weight of modern science, As if that means anything...it's argument from authority and argument from consensus...nothing more. and the fact we do not have a type specimen to offer That we know of. Anecdotal evidence to a scientist is a paper tiger........ Unless of course it is a "scientist" who is giving the anecdote, then it's "observational data" or some such thing. and add to that there is no fossil record for it? Again, that we know of. There are plenty of hominid/humanoid/et al fossils that we do have that we don't know for sure what they are. That "fossil record" could very well be sitting in plain sight in some university or museum uncatalogued right this very moment. Or we may well not have discovered it's fossils for any number of reasons. Lack of fossils is such a weak tea argument given the colossal incompleteness of the record on the topic. So by those categories I probably waffle back and forth between little "s" and capital "S." Just out of curiousity, Mulder, what sort of categories would you assign to the proponents side? I see the terms "knower" and "believer" used quite a bit. Are there other categories? Is there a category on the proponent side that is the equivilent of "Scofftic"? That is, someone who uncritically accepts any evidence that supports their agenda? I laid out the outline of my continuum here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted December 24, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 24, 2012 If the big guy is real, for those of you that have seen one I don't know whether to envy you or feel sorry for you. I think we all, at one time or another, have had the frustrating feeling of knowing you were 100% right on something and have been treated dismissively or laughed at. Sucks, don't it? Nailed it. Only thing is I don't expect anyone to believe me, so I only mention my sighting if I know the people well, or if I feel like stirring up a conversation and don't care what people think of me afterwards... But I have often thought that the sighting was a blessing or a curse, and never sorted out which it was, or even if that is the right way to look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Rockape ~ "I think most skeptics actually believe, they just aren't going to admit they believe until there is solid, irrefutable evidence." Uhh.....er.....are you new here??? Don't know how long you have to be here to not be considered new, but I consider myself as new. I'm going by the old line of "They doth protest too much". Seems many are trying to convince themselves the BF doesn't exist more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 There are two equally disturbing mentalities. "I believe and you have to believe also" and "I don't believe and you can't believe either" That sounds right, except based on my experience on the JREF, I have seen that the second one is sometimes a lot more like "I believe they don't exist and you can't believe they do". Equally disturbing for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts