"squatchholm" Syndrome

[Guest]

You'll get a general idea of what BF looks like by reading the visual accounts on any forums. When the witness has eliminated all other known possibilities and is left with no other explanation for a description, other than possibly a BF ( as per the PGF film, I suppose).

I'll take this as admission that we only know "suuposedly" what a bigfoot looks like.

I'm not being defensive, just offering a logical approach to illogical assumptions by the skeptics.

Your attempt to foist a fallacious argument off as logical fails. You are committing the informal fallacy of the false dilemma, by presenting me with a choice between black and white, while I have repeatedly demonstrated a valid third, gray option. If you insist on thinking outside the realm of logic, there can be no further discussion.

I suspect part of your problem is that many dictionaries seem to define "skeptic" in terms of a scoftic, but science is practiced by open-minded people of a skeptical nature. (Most discrionaries define "skeptical" on broader, more modern terms.) The type of non-scoftical skepticism I am referring and adhering to can be regarded as scientific skepticism:

"Scientific skepticism … is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological normpursuing "the extension of certified knowledge"."

"Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.

"Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.

"From a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability, Occam's Razor, and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results. Skepticism is part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.

…

Not all fringe science is pseudoscience. For instance, some proponents of repressed memories apply the scientific method carefully, and have even found some empirical support for their validity, though the theories have not receivedcomplete scientific consensus.

Empirical or scientific skeptics do not profess philosophical skepticism. Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

You'll get a general idea of what BF looks like by reading the visual accounts on any forums. When the witness has eliminated all other known possibilities and is left with no other explanation for a description, other than possibly a BF ( as per the PGF film, I suppose).

I'll take this as admission that we only know "suuposedly" what a bigfoot looks like.

I'm not being defensive, just offering a logical approach to illogical assumptions by the skeptics.

Your attempt to foist a fallacious argument off as logical fails. You are committing the informal fallacy of the false dilemma, by presenting me with a choice between black and white, while I have repeatedly demonstrated a valid third, gray option. If you insist on thinking outside the realm of logic, there can be no further discussion.

I suspect part of your problem is that many dictionaries seem to define "skeptic" in terms of a scoftic, but science is practiced by open-minded people of a skeptical nature. (Most discrionaries define "skeptical" on broader, more modern terms.) The type of non-scoftical skepticism I am referring and adhering to can be regarded as scientific skepticism:

"Scientific skepticism … is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological normpursuing "the extension of certified knowledge"."

"Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.

"Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.

"From a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability, Occam's Razor, and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results. Skepticism is part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.

…

"Not all fringe science is pseudoscience. For instance, some proponents of repressed memories apply the scientific method carefully, and have even found some empirical support for their validity, though the theories have not receivedcomplete scientific consensus.

"Empirical or scientific skeptics do not profess philosophical skepticism. Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge."

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

[Guest]

Padre Pio, a R Catholic priest in the early - mid 20th Century, was known to "bilocate"--be in two places at one time. He was sort of a mystic, reagarded by some with great respect, and I don't know if he is on his way to being canonized, but that may be the case. Seems like I recall that. He is pretty interesting.

So I guess it's not as wacky as it sounds, because, hey, Padre Pio....

Edited February 6, 2013 by Kings Canyon

[Guest]

Autobiography of a Yogi, by Paramahansa Yogananda. Amazing book. The story of the bi-locating yogi is in there.... Along with many other fascintating stories. Great read.

I also actually know somebody who learned how to levitate.

We humans be very talented (sometimes).

"If it's in a book, it's gotta be true" Milhouse Van Houten.

I sure would love to see a short grainy film of your friend levitating over a creek bed in the woods of northern California.

[Guest]

The general look taking in to account for regional and general species variation is known to those of us that have either seen it directly or taken the time to do the research.

Perhaps you could publish an illustrated taxonomic key to the various bigfoot species inhabiting the continent for the benefit of the test of us.

I decline to kowtow to your null hypothesis.

Which is your right.

Sounds like a lot of buzz words and empty jargon.

Just a structured logical process called science. Nothing mystical about it.

When it comes down to it. Either we are all liars or you are wrong. Judge for yourself.

Another false choice. And, I am judging for myself, thank you.

[Guest thermalman]

@ pter You're entitled to an opinion, even though it may not be right. But one thing we've all learned about profs, teachers, and scientists, is,........you can tell them, but you can't tell them much! Their self perceived pontifical status seems to inhibit their thought process to deal with the logical and rational experiences that other people have.

Edited February 6, 2013 by thermalman

[Djj]

Padre Pio, a R Catholic priest in the early - mid 20th Century, was known to "bilocate"--be in two places at one time. He was sort of a mystic, reagarded by some with great respect, and I don't know if he is on his way to being canonized, but that may be the case. Seems like I recall that. He is pretty interesting.

So I guess it's not as wacky as it sounds, because, hey, Padre Pio....

Canonized by the Catholic Church in 2003 FYI.

[Guest]

Why should anyone listen to habituators? Because they have opportunities to learn from BF, and that information (if shared) can lead to greater understanding. Given that science has very little on the subject, anecdotal information (especially when identified from multiple sources) should be used as a starting point. Here are two examples of anecdotal value? Locals in Africa (Congo I think) knew about this new specie of monkey before science discovered it. A similar event happened with pandas.

JDL, great comments (Bravo Zulu!). Same for AH for KC.

I agree with Norseman regarding BF kicking our butts, and we should change the way we think. However, I don't think murder is justifiable. They are not just bipedal apes. BF are highly intelligent, and they have better senses than we do. I doubt a group of humans with long guns will ever see them. I advise against going out BF hunting alone with your guide gun. It is a fine short range rifle, but hunting BF alone is a very bad idea...just my opinion.

BTW, the BFF should have a pinned thread covering equipment recommendations and known vulnerabiliites. This would help researchers buy the most effective equipment.

[Guest]

"Skeptics have no argument, just opinions based on negative based values. Once these values become positive.......its like.............."where art thou oh wise skeptic"?

It's hilarious to listen to skeptics proclaim how BF witnesses are everything negative (delusional, mistaken id, fabricators, hoaxers (aka liars), etc.), and how the PGF is just a costume. Yet, skeptics cannot prove or produce a single shred of evidence to back their assumptions. Witnesses saw what they saw, and the PGF has never been proven to be a hoax. So, as much as skeptics want evidence from BF proponents, the onus is equally the same for them to prove that there was a costume in the PGF, and that the witnesses are what the skeptics claim they are."-TM

On the subject of BF, the Skeptical position (and their 'null hypothesis') is a gigantic logical fallacy baldly presented, to wit: "BF does not exist. All evidence on proffer is either hoaxed, misidentified, or otherwise not valid. Prove us wrong..."

[Guest thermalman]

Skeptics claim "you can't prove a negative", which is why they huddle together behind it. They think they're safe there, and behind their computers? Pessimistic and close-minded.

[LeafTalker]

Padre Pio, a R Catholic priest in the early - mid 20th Century, was known to "bilocate"--be in two places at one time. He was sort of a mystic, reagarded by some with great respect, and I don't know if he is on his way to being canonized, but that may be the case. Seems like I recall that. He is pretty interesting.

So I guess it's not as wacky as it sounds, because, hey, Padre Pio....

Thanks, KC.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- W. S.

Canonized by the Catholic Church in 2003 FYI.

Edited February 7, 2013 by LeafTalker

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

It kinda disturbs me seeing people who dedicate every day of their life to arguing that bigfoot does not exist.

Edited February 7, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[LeafTalker]

It kinda disturbs me seeing people who dedicate every day of their life to arguing that bigfoot does not exist.

I feel the same way, OS.... I share your dismay.....

[the parkie]

I also actually know somebody who learned how to levitate.

I would love to hear their story and possibly even learn this ability myself - can you tell me who this is or put me in touch with them please?

[LeafTalker]

I wish I could, the parkie, but I don't feel comfortable doing that. The person I spoke of is an acquaintance, not a friend; lives overseas now; and, from what I can gather, is an extremely busy person. I'm so sorry! But if your area supports healers of some kind -- like Reiki practitioners, and/or other kinds of people who do "energy work" -- you could do an informal poll and see if anyone in that community has any leads for you.... Good luck, and again, I'm sorry!!!!

[Guest thermalman]

David Blaine?