Food For Thought - Skeptics And Believers

[Guest DWA]

See?  Just gets old.

 

I've been teling you about this for how long now?  And I am supposed to think that digging this up for you will change anything?  Kidding right?

 

[he KEEPS COMING BACK.]

 

[Reading would be a better use of time.]

 

[Naaaah]

He is me, except when it's you. 

 

You try to speed through stuff and not think about it.  That may be what makes thinking so hard for you to follow.

[dmaker]

Uhm, no , I assure you that in this case speed reading has nothing to do with it...

[Guest DWA]

^{ok.  we're good, then.}

[dmaker]

We'd be better if you would backup your claim, but you are unwilling to. So we'll just have to stop expecting that I guess...

[Guest DWA]

At some point you just go "he won't deal with it until its proven, so let him think what he thinks."

 

OK.

[dmaker]

That's a bit contradictory for someone who says I want to be challenged on the evidence. Then you claim that evidence in the form of alleged Bigfoot hair has been analyzed and clearly pronounced as coming from an "unknown primate". I call hooey on that and you decline to engage and backup your evidence based claim?  The only way that makes any sense to what you have been saying all along is if you already know the claim cannot be truly upheld.

[Guest DWA]

Like most bigfoot skeptic errors (I just pointed another one out somewhere else...on a thread that talks about unknown primate hair finds), this one omits a simpler explanation that never seems to occur to the 'skeptic':

 

I know where this is going and I don't need to go there.

 

Oh, I've read them and there are many more than one.  You are the one who has to show me your reading equals mine. 

 

It, um, doesn't.  But you'd rather keep coming here and going nonononononono than read the evidence and think about it to see how wrong you are.

 

Bigfoot skeptics truly fear the evidence; they live in constant terror of it.  I confront them with it and they disappear.  I have decided to let you find it for yourself; you don't seem to care about anything coming from anyone else.

Edited September 5, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Oh, so I see how this works now. I get to make a claim. You then ask for me to substantiate that claim, and then I get to say, no you do it! And that's ok?  Cool. I will remember to use this tactic the next chance I get.

 

Oh, and BTW, there is no such thing as "unknown primate" hair finds...but nice try.

You confronted me with evidence.I did not run in fear, I instead asked you to substantiate that claim. And I am still here waiting. I am not in terror of your response.  

[Guest DWA]

YOU DO THAT ALL THE TIME, THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE BEEN DOING!

 

OK, it's not that.  It's:  we make a claim.  You yell SHOW MONKEY!

 

I've just decided (WSA, btw, got there a week or so ago) that it just isn't doing it for me anymore.

 

Yes, budding scientists, the best way to respond to people who aren't listening is not responding.

 

(And yeah, you don't have to convince them and yeah, no one does.)

 

The uninformed frequently show no fear.  Count on this, though:  when I confront the people who actually make their money from skepticism - people that I have a significant hunch know better, but they're making their money from the public's disbelief - poof.  Gone.  Vanish.  Happens regularly.

Ask Ben Radford; ask Daniel Loxton; ask Sharon Hill; ask...

[dmaker]

Bigfoot skeptics are by and large uninformed on this topic. You argue that constantly. And then you say:

 

"Bigfoot skeptics truly fear the evidence; they live in constant terror of it."   But then two posts later you say:

 

 

"The uninformed frequently show no fear. "  This in response to my comment that I was, in fact, not in terror of your response. 

 

So which one is it? We fear the evidence, or we show no fear?  

 

And yes, budding scientists, the way to respond to a request to substantiate a claim is to ignore the request and instead blow smoke screens and try to change the subject. 

[Guest DWA]

Both.

 

You just don't have the information.

 

Those folks that I make disappear when I put it in their faces:  they have the info; they should know better...but the pseudoskeptic books they put out make money, and they don't want to look like total fools when I show them how all the scientific errors they just laid out....they are making.  Poof.  Magic, it is!

 

Oh, it's both, count on it.

 

So dmaker should stop doing that last paragraph of his, right budding bigfooters?

Never mind SHOW MONKEY!  being his whole case.

[dmaker]

If I were a " budding bigfooter" your argument would have went down a peg or two today when you failed to respond to a request to substantiate your claim. It seems pretty hypocritical of someone who loves to engage in evidence based arguments and then refuses to confirm a claim made about the evidence.  Very odd indeed...

 

If I were a "budding bigfooter" I might be looking for a different hero right about now...

Edited September 5, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

My claim is substantiated in the literature you don't seem to want to read.  I'm not The Bigfoot Library or The Bigfoot Librarian.  But I've sussed it, and I have been helping with that time out of mind, to no apparent result.

 

I'm flattered that you see me as a Bigfoot Hero (good choice, budding Bigfooters!)  But, see, for [checks] 1,920 posts now, you have failed to come up with one argument that would make anyone take the skeptical case seriously.  You have, many times, boosted the mainstream as the lockdown airtight refutation of the proponents.  But you haven't included in those [checks] 1,920 posts one single thing that any one of them says that one would need a science degree to shred to ribbons. In other words, all those scientists you rely on are responded to, handily, comme ca:

 

"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough." - Michael Chrichton

 

 

Done there.

 

And when it's Meldrum Krantz and Bindernagel - no need to list anyone else - vs. dmaker and the Unsolid Consensus...well, one would hope that even dmaker would side with the people who are showing their work.

 

But maybe not.  I'm just not responding to data requests from people who demonstrably do nothing with them.  (And in the case of P/G, don't even care about the data.)

 

So, say what you want.  Moving on.  As you yourself say:  I'm not turning this into another one of those threads. 

 

Right?  Right.

[dmaker]

Can Meldrum, Krantz and Bindernagel show the Monkey along with their work?  That would be something of note...

[Guest Darrell]

^At some point there has to be more than footprints and sightings.