Skeptics

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I got quite annoyed a little while ago while reading responses from certain individuals who label themselves "skeptics." Since I am still somewhat perturbed, perhaps this is not the best moment to create a thread, but I will go ahead with what I want to get across. What I am about to say is very important, and I think everyone who is interested in bigfoot in any capacity will be better informed if they understand this.

 

ANYONE who claims sasquatch is not real is NOT a skeptic. If one actually looks up the definition of the word skeptic, they will find that various dictionaries give something similar to the following: "a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions." This definition does not insinuate that a skeptic is someone who questions claims that are not yet established as factual, rather it could be construed as meaning someone who doubts even well established beliefs.

 

However, that is not the way the general population interprets the term, and in fact there are definitions that define a skeptic as someone who simply questions or doubts something, no matter whether that thing is well established, on the fringe, or somewhere in between. This is the meaning that I personally accept as being the most accurate. But in viewing both definitions something else becomes obvious...Skepticism is a term of degrees. Meaning that skepticism is a spectrum, at least in my view. There is what we would term "healthy" skepticism, as well "excessive" skepticism somewhere on the opposite side of the spectrum.

 

Excessive skepticism is somewhere near cynicism, or a better term for it would be simply a "disbeliever."

 

I think the majority of us would agree that healthy skepticism, which is basically the way most people think of skepticism anyway, could be defined somewhere along the lines of "questioning any claim that has yet to be proven, not necessarily because the claim is believed to be incorrect, but because there is not enough evidence to draw an accurate conclusion." I believe that is a very fair definition in fact.

 

So with a solid working definition of skepticism established, it is self-evident why someone who claims that bigfoot is not real is NOT a skeptic. They are a disbeliever. They could be labelled a skeptic in the sense of unhealthy skepticism, but nobody would want to be labelled that type of skeptic, because a person who questions EVERYTHING, even in the face of proof, is not a rational person. 

 

And most of those who call themselves skeptics in the bigfoot world would like to be thought of as at least reasonably intelligent, and definitely not irrational. So for someone to make the claim that sasquatch does not exist, they are leaving absolutely zero room for the possibility. And as I established already, a true skeptic does not disbelieve, otherwise they would simply be a disbeliever or naysayer. Rather, a true skeptic is someone who questions the reality of sasquatch, but who also realizes that there is a possibility these animals exist, and thus they leave room for this possibility in their beliefs. A person who is a true skeptic would NEVER say that bigfoot does not exist. What they should say is that bigfoot may or may not exist, but currently there is not enough evidence to say that it does. That is a far cry from stating that it does not exist. I am of course neglecting the fact that there truly is evidence out there for the existence of sasquatch, evidence that would scientifically prove that bigfoot exists, in that the DNA would not match any known species, and could be placed somewhere on the evolutionary spectrum of all life. But that is a completely different matter, and not one for this thread.

 

The entire point of this thread was to (hopefully) wake certain disbelievers up to the fact that by calling themselves skeptics, they are not actually fooling anyone into thinking that they have the intellectual upper hand on those "crazy sasquatch nutters." I say this because I get the feeling that some like to call themselves a skeptic simply because it can often look a bit nicer than coming out and saying in a straightforward manner that "I don't believe in sasquatch." Some may see nothing wrong with saying the latter, but as I have hopefully shown, there definitely is something wrong with that statement. Why? Because stating sasquatch does not exist means that the person is leaving no room for the possibility, and given all of the evidence that is available, and given the fact that sasquatch cannot be disproven, it is not a logical conclusion. A logical person who doubts the existence of bigfoot should say that while they do not believe the animal is real, IT IS POSSIBLE.

 

For those who don't want to read all that...

 

TOO LONG DIDN'T READ:

 

Don't claim you're a skeptic when you say things like "bigfoot doesn't exist," because such a belief is actually contradictory to skepticism, since a skeptic will still allow for the possibility of something, even if they have extreme doubts, while a disbeliever has already made up their minds about something, with absolute certainty. So many who claim to be skeptics should actually call themselves disbelievers.

 

 

[LeafTalker]

I feel your pain... Nice post, Jiggy. 

[Squatchy McSquatch]

I've never referred to myself as a skeptic.

 

It has always been my position that sasquatch exists only as a social construct.

[norseman]

A modern social construct or something more ancient?

[gigantor]

Rather, a true skeptic is someone who questions the reality of sasquatch, but who also realizes that there is a possibility these animals exist, and thus they leave room for this possibility in their beliefs. A person who is a true skeptic would NEVER say that bigfoot does not exist. What they should say is that bigfoot may or may not exist, but currently there is not enough evidence to say that it does.

Well, I'm a "true skeptic", and I realize BF might exist. BUT, it has nothing to do with beliefs. It is all about FACTS.

 

 

Don't claim you're a skeptic when you say things like "bigfoot doesn't exist," because such a belief is actually contradictory to skepticism, since a skeptic will still allow for the possibility of something, even if they have extreme doubts, while a disbeliever has already made up their minds about something, with absolute certainty. So many who claim to be skeptics should actually call themselves disbelievers.

 

Again, you focus on beliefs, which are subjective and a "true skeptic" does not deal in perceived truths, we evaluate FACTS and reach an educated conclusion from them.

 

So, I would say your analysis of "skeptics" is a hasty generalization of our intellectual stand, which omits many valid points.   I'm sure many of us would be willing to engage in a detailed discussion of your perceived points of truth.

 

p.s. I'm gonna have the guys over and we'll be watching football all day Sunday, so I wont respond 'til monday....

Edited November 24, 2013 by gigantor

[Squatchy McSquatch]

A modern social construct or something more ancient?

 

Modern, as in the wthin less than the last century.

 

And GO TIGER CATS!!!

Edited November 24, 2013 by Squatchy McSquatch

[Sasfooty]

Well, I'm a "true skeptic", and I realize BF might exist. BUT, it has nothing to do with beliefs. It is all about FACTS.

 

Obviously, it's all about your belief in perceived facts & has nothing to do with REAL facts.

 

we evaluate FACTS and reach an educated conclusion from them.

 

So you evaluate perceived facts that you only believe in & reach what you perceive to be an educated conclusion.

Edited November 24, 2013 by AaronD
to remove insults

[Guest Cervelo]

Nice rant hope you feel better!
So where does this thread go from here now that Jiggy has explained the definition of a skeptic by his/her standards....thank you so much for that
Anybody got one shred of evidence that proves Bigfoot exists?
I've got a reallly cool story but it doesn't prove anything...it's just my belief that what stalked me was on two feet and no man.
That is the "reality" of Bigfoot at this point it's a belief system, there is no concrete proof of any such creature.....so far.
Sure Bigfoot could exist but for now IMO 99.9% of the evidence is malarkey and the rest is nothing but stories just like my own.
I'll keep looking and enjoying the great outdoors regardless
So to you Jiggy I say how dare you define me or anyone else on this fourm...put your money where your mouth is and join me in the Tar Pit where we can dispense with the word/rules games played here in the open forum, you might find it liberating!

Edited November 25, 2013 by Cervelo
removed unnecessay comment

[GuyInIndiana]

Interesting thoughts. I don't know how many "skeptics threads" we can have here, but to each his own.

 

Even though I've seen a BF, I consider myself a cynic, nearly every time I see the evidence presented for their existence. Moreso whenever I hear the justifications given for all poorly constructed belief systems surrounding BF, which have nothing to back them up.

[Guest Boolywooger]

But Cervelo, the denialist is also simply a belief system and it's based on even flimsier logic than the "bleever's". It's based on the assumption that every cast track, every second of video, every eye witness account is either hoaxed, a lie, a hallucination, or a case of misidentification. Because otherwise his position is untenable.

[Guest LarryP]

So where does this thread go from here now that Jiggy has explained the definition of a skeptic by his/her standards....thank you so much for that

 

 

 

Jiggy clearly stated the proper definition of a "skeptic" as it's found in the dictionary, not by his/her standards.

 

I.E. : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skeptic

 

 

a person who questions or doubts something (such as a claim or statement) : a person who often questions or doubts things

[Guest DWA]

I'm down with Jiggy.  I think the evidence points very clearly to the existence of unclassified hairy hominoids.  And I am the walking definition of "skeptic."

 

Some things that just plain are not and in no way could be considered "skeptical" by a serious person:

 

1.  Presuming that a scientific "consensus" represents the truth when a clear-eyed analysis of the evidence could not make it clearer that the "consensus" does not even show the barest acquaintance with the volume, consistency, and depth of the evidence.  In other words, the "consensus" is not scientific.  At all.

 

2.  Thinking something isn't real because someone hasn't seen it.

 

3.  Hearing many cogent arguments for the evidence...and countering as if one has not heard anything.

 

4.  Asking me to "just believe" you when you tell me thousands of reports stem from this...and can't prove this for even an insignificant fragment of them.

 

5.  Asking me to "just believe" that the Patterson-Gimlin film is not authentic, when no one has produced any evidence backing that up in over 46 years, and copious evidence attesting to its authenticity is pointed to by people with directly relevant scientific chops.

 

6.  Asking me to "just believe" that no other species of upright hominoid could have made it alive alongside us to modern times when...well, look how much else has.

 

7.  Asking me to "just believe" that something is a fantastic proposition to which fossil evidence points as, well, pretty routine.  (Plenty of extinct critters have been found that if we saw one tomorrow we'd call it "bigfoot."

 

8.  Asking me to "just believe" that mainstream science has got this, when mainstream science has acted gobsmacked and stunned by plenty of things that haven't surprised me one bit.

 

For those who don't want to read all that...

 

TOO LONG DIDN'T READ:

 

If you try to sell me something, and back it up with nothing, I doubt you.

 

THAT, folks, is what skepticism means.

[Guest]

LarryP and OP, I'm happy to say your definitions do not match up with mine on the word skeptic.

[Guest DWA]

Well, theirs is the dictionary definition.

 

Jeff Meldrum is a skeptic, as defined in the dictionary.  So was Grover Krantz; so is John Bindernagel.  All bigfoot proponents.  All skeptics.

[salubrious]

There was a thread a while back about the difference between proponents and knowers, as opposed to skeptics and scoftics.

 

Scoftics being those that dismiss all things BF out of hand. Knowers being those that *know* without need of belief out of direct experience.

 

Of these I am a skeptic and a knower. The skeptic in observing most of the faked photos and videos and also wild claims. Funny how having seen one allows you the ability to sort thru a lot of the nonsense and garbage. But at the same time though I have to be vigilant about seeing BF *everywhere* including clips on YouTube...