Guest DWA Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) Right on, WSA. There seems to be a total absorption in sideshows I consider barely worth a raised eyebrow and a chuckle (Justin Smeja; Ketchum DNA; Georgia Boys; the latest P/G "expose." And the meat of the evidence, the prime-time scientific filet mignon...almost no one seems to know a thing about it. Yep, a leaking tent and a tube of lip balm in your pocket are an easier 1+1 when you are out there, and tired of Chinese water torture. (Think about it. Critically.) Edited April 5, 2013 by DWA To remove error message analogy
Guest Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 Prior to some events last August that made me consider what I as experiencing might be from bigfoots, I wasn't a skeptic - I was completely indifferent to it. I had heard, sure, but my interest in anything unusual was limited to megaliths. Never really thought about it, thought about bigfoot as just another cryptid, though I did think the PGF was interesting, bu completely inconclusive.,,,or if there was a few bigfoot creatures, surely they weren't around in the present day.
southernyahoo Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 I think the word skeptic sometimes takes on a meaning of doubting everything, but I think it is more proper to say it means reserved judgement coupled with a questioning mind. Often the answers aren't definitive enough to make a call, yes or no, true or false, yet still intrigues. Rushing to judgement tends to end an investigation prematurely. Some people are happy to just make a call and move on, while others are like miners who want to be thorough, and investigate in person, in the field.
coffee2go Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 According to Webster, the synonyms for a skeptic are as follows: disbeliever, doubter, doubting Thomas, questioner, unbeliever Which would lead one to believe that you can't be a skeptic and believer at the same time. You are either one or the other. The only synonym that might allow someone to be a little bit of a believer is "questioner". You could believe that there is the possibility of undiscovered species, but you question that they are in the US and are 9 ft. tall. What makes a skeptic become a believer? Maybe it's what makes you believe or suspect other things in life are true without actually seeing it/them for yourself. I'm sure it's different for different people.
salubrious Posted April 10, 2013 Moderator Posted April 10, 2013 According to Webster, the synonyms for a skeptic are as follows: disbeliever, doubter, doubting Thomas, questioner, unbeliever Which would lead one to believe that you can't be a skeptic and believer at the same time. But you can still be a skeptic and a knower, which is fundamentally different from a believer.
ThePhaige Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 According to Webster, the synonyms for a skeptic are as follows: disbeliever, doubter, doubting Thomas, questioner, unbeliever Which would lead one to believe that you can't be a skeptic and believer at the same time. But you can still be a skeptic and a knower, which is fundamentally different from a believer. I believe the non religious definition for "agnostic" would be the go to for one who may doubt with an open mind. Thats the school i once attended. Now i would say I have been "differently equipped" from my encounters and would call myself a knower...others would call me a believer...but that leans toward faith, which is not relevant to the content of my experience with this creature.
Guest Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 But you can still be a skeptic and a knower, which is fundamentally different from a believer. I think that's right. To suggest that someone who has an experienced-based certainty that these animals are real can't also apply critical thinking skills when evaluating other evidence would be an insult. IMO.
salubrious Posted April 10, 2013 Moderator Posted April 10, 2013 ^^ yes, recently Cervelo mentioned that 99.something or other of evidence for BF is malarky, and I agree with him. But that little bit that isn't malarky is where it gets really interesting... When dealing with any evidence, you have to be on the lookout for the malarky, especially if you know already that these things are real. Of course, direct experience counts for a lot more.
Recommended Posts