Guest DWA Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 I don't understand this either, but I hear it pretty regularly here. If you don't buy into the Bigfoot myth, then somehow that means that I am terrified of it being real. Uhm, no. No,no and no. I actually welcome the idea. It does not threaten my world view, my religion or my place in the world in any way. I don't know if that's what proponents think is why we don't believe in Bigfoot, but it's really not true at all. Bigfoot is a fairy tale because it is not real, not because I'm afraid of the idea. That is nonsense. Didn't get that last sentence. Oh. If you meant "Bigfoot is a fairy tale" is nonsense, you are correct. On the other hand, if you know that, you will share the proof with us. Posthaste. Getting old here. (Bindernagel. Um...read the cover yet...?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 (edited) I welcome any new discovery regardless of what it is or it's source. I learn new stuff every week that potentially changes my thinking or proves I was wrong about something! No earth shattering, mind blowing experience just the realization I don't know it all and it's a really cool world out there and includes some smart folks! But until then prove it!!! whatever your claim is convince me its true with the evidence. Opinions are great and like a certain body part most of us have one and its fun to pontificate but don't expect/demand anyone accept a story on the Internet as the truth in any matter...much less bigfoot. Most proponents and their position remind me of this guy..... Edited April 6, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 Are skeptics "scared" of BF being proven real? Some probably are, if they are so engrained in their ideology. I don't know if the correct term for these people is skeptic. Gotta remember that we have all types in here - and out there. Here is a spectrum of how I see these types. "know" it doesn't exist believe it doesn't exist doubt it exists thinks it could exists believes it exists knows it exists trades food with it, goes on moonlit walks with it, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 I don't understand this either, but I hear it pretty regularly here. If you don't buy into the Bigfoot myth, then somehow that means that I am terrified of it being real. Uhm, no. No,no and no. I actually welcome the idea. It does not threaten my world view, my religion or my place in the world in any way. I don't know if that's what proponents think is why we don't believe in Bigfoot, but it's really not true at all. Bigfoot is a fairy tale because it is not real, not because I'm afraid of the idea. That is nonsense. Here is a perfect example of how far the pseudo-skeptic devotees of James Randi are willing to go to uphold their flat earth world view: Guerrilla Skeptics: http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2013/03/guerrilla-skeptics.html People like Susan Gerbic who are willing to spend that much time and effort trying to disprove something that they don't believe are driven primarily by fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 That still doesn't seem like fear to me. It seems more like someone driven to support what they see as a lack of critical thinking skills in the world. Who knows though. It's very difficult to actually know another person's true motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 That still doesn't seem like fear to me. It seems more like someone driven to support what they see as a lack of critical thinking skills in the world. Who knows though. It's very difficult to actually know another person's true motivation. The key being "what they see" as a lack of critical thinking skills. That didn't work out very well for Randi when he ran into Dean Radin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 If their perception is that others lack critical thinking skills, the fear argument doesn't really hold up well. I did think of an example of where this could work though. 911 conspiracy theories being proven true woud significantly alter my world view. I think I'm even a bit biased when I research these. I find them outlandish to say the least but maybe there's a part of me that doesn't even want to keep an open mind. I don't think so, but maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 That still doesn't seem like fear to me. It seems more like someone driven to support what they see as a lack of critical thinking skills in the world. Who knows though. It's very difficult to actually know another person's true motivation. The key being "what they see" as a lack of critical thinking skills. That didn't work out very well for Randi when he ran into Dean Radin. I feel pretty confident that there is a general lack of critical thinking from the average person in North America. I don't have data to back this up but just plenty of daily observations. I'm sure I'm guilty of it at times as well. If improving this is a skeptic's motivation, it doesn't seem all that horrible to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 As long as they are being properly skeptical. In this field, I have noted that "skeptic" has a common connotation *** denotation, one that itself shows a failure of critical thinking. Instead of being one who questions all assumptions - including the comfortable assumption that this ain't real - a "skeptic" is somebody who hews to the comfortable assumption that this ain't real, in the face of all evidence, donning nor'wester and slicker against a storm of indications that, well, he might be wrong on this one. A "skeptic" is somebody who is, just basically, anti-, and who thinks that the preponderance of evidence says this ain't real, when in fact the opposite is the case, and comes on acting as if, no, he's the one with all the information, and never considers seriously the possibility that thousands of sober people of every conceivable walk of life, plus scientists who have laid out in detail arguments supporting the proponent view, might just might know more than he does. He doesn't read up, and brings ignorance on as arrogance. That ain't skeptical. I reserve the term "bigfoot skeptics" for them, which is a term of art meaning "doesn't know what's up, and assumes he's right when really he has a lot of work to do to see how wrong he is, which is never likely to happen." Think Ranae on "Finding Bigfoot," and she's actually better than some here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I'm basing my comments on the actual definition of a skeptic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 That would be me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 As long as they are being properly skeptical. In this field, I have noted that "skeptic" has a common connotation *** denotation, one that itself shows a failure of critical thinking. Instead of being one who questions all assumptions - including the comfortable assumption that this ain't real - a "skeptic" is somebody who hews to the comfortable assumption that this ain't real, in the face of all evidence, donning nor'wester and slicker against a storm of indications that, well, he might be wrong on this one. A "skeptic" is somebody who is, just basically, anti-, and who thinks that the preponderance of evidence says this ain't real, when in fact the opposite is the case, and comes on acting as if, no, he's the one with all the information, and never considers seriously the possibility that thousands of sober people of every conceivable walk of life, plus scientists who have laid out in detail arguments supporting the proponent view, might just might know more than he does. He doesn't read up, and brings ignorance on as arrogance. That ain't skeptical. I reserve the term "bigfoot skeptics" for them, which is a term of art meaning "doesn't know what's up, and assumes he's right when really he has a lot of work to do to see how wrong he is, which is never likely to happen." Think Ranae on "Finding Bigfoot," and she's actually better than some here. Naaah, you're wrong again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 As long as they are being properly skeptical. In this field, I have noted that "skeptic" has a common connotation *** denotation, one that itself shows a failure of critical thinking. Instead of being one who questions all assumptions - including the comfortable assumption that this ain't real - a "skeptic" is somebody who hews to the comfortable assumption that this ain't real, in the face of all evidence, donning nor'wester and slicker against a storm of indications that, well, he might be wrong on this one. A "skeptic" is somebody who is, just basically, anti-, and who thinks that the preponderance of evidence says this ain't real, when in fact the opposite is the case, and comes on acting as if, no, he's the one with all the information, and never considers seriously the possibility that thousands of sober people of every conceivable walk of life, plus scientists who have laid out in detail arguments supporting the proponent view, might just might know more than he does. He doesn't read up, and brings ignorance on as arrogance. That ain't skeptical. I reserve the term "bigfoot skeptics" for them, which is a term of art meaning "doesn't know what's up, and assumes he's right when really he has a lot of work to do to see how wrong he is, which is never likely to happen." Think Ranae on "Finding Bigfoot," and she's actually better than some here. Naaah, you're wrong again. I think you just made his point... (Forgive me if I missed the sarcasm tag, if it applied.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 (edited) It may look like that to you, but not really. I'm not a skeptic. I'm a non-believer in a world supposedly brimming with evidence. None of that evidence has been strong enough to produce a sasquatch, or a bigfoot, or a yeti, or a yeren. Not even a wood ape. Sarcasm. Yes. Edited April 7, 2013 by Squatchy McSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I feel pretty confident that there is a general lack of critical thinking from the average person in North America. That is definitely an understatement. Unfortunately, our educational system is designed to keep it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts