Skeptics

[Guest]

Where in my post did I specify that came only from habs?  In fact, I engaged in PM with a hab who offered more info to me than some others have.  My observations of behaviors covers many from the proponent side, not just habs.  Please do not assume things about me - you do not know me.

[Incorrigible1]

Um, I just walk away from blobsquatches.  That easy, that quick.

 

Pin a rose on yer posterior.

[Guest DWA]

Whew, frustration palpaple, guys!  I find evidence to be a great cure, but hey.

 

You're telling me that the OP's experience is illegitimate?  Not sure I see that.

[chelefoot]

  If this forum does not want to members to ask clarifying questions, offer new ideas on gathering evidence or test the evidence that we do have - then perhaps this is the wrong place for me.  Feel free to pat yourself on your collective backs and make no progress. 

 

 

This forum has never said that one should not ask questions or offer ideas.  That is part of discussion and what this forum is for.

You are in the right place!

[Guest DWA]

Seems to work for me.

[Guest DWA]

Where in my post did I specify that came only from habs?  In fact, I engaged in PM with a hab who offered more info to me than some others have.  My observations of behaviors covers many from the proponent side, not just habs.  Please do not assume things about me - you do not know me.

Well, just like you didn't mean just habs, I was generalizing too.  "Proof on my schedule NOW" is the quickest gist of the standard skeptical tack, and not just to habs.

 

I have seen no proponent here who wasn't open to advice or new ways of seeing.  Really,  I have not.

 

But there is a way to go about that.

[Guest LarryP]

  Isn't that what we should ALL be doing? 

 

Why do you think we should "ALL" be concerned with gathering evidence?

[GuyInIndiana]

Why do you think we should "ALL" be concerned with gathering evidence?

 

And THAT'S the biggest faux pas made at this or any forum out there: the belief (pro or con) that *someone else* needs to provide that one conclusive piece of PROOF that will change everything... and if you HAVE anything of value, you have this expressed responsibility to share it.

 

If you aren't helping foot the bill, then it just ain't so.

[Guest DWA]

Most of the animals I have seen in my life no one else knows about but me.

 

There is no obligation, express or otherwise, to share.

 

Habituators who have no interest in showing anyone proof they don't have and are not interested in gathering have a right and a reason to be here unharassed.  Busily engaging one's mind actually thinking about the evidence and what it represents - something that way more people here could spend way more time doing - should tamp down any frustration one might feel that somebody in KY is feeding a bigfoot on a regular basis, and has decided not to invite scientists to spoil the party.  An extremely hearty good for them, I say.

[WSA]

You are absolutely correct DWA, on all the points you made about the habituators' prerogatives on this forum, to my way of thinking. And then there is this kicker: If you insert yourself into a conversation concerning what YOU might consider to be outlandish claims, you will end that sharing of information/beliefs/evidence/conjecture/wondering/anxiety/theories/strategies/experiences/predictions.....and much all else.  For what? For the juicing you get by just coming in as a know-it-all? Well, congratulations, you've bagged your limit of rain barrel fish.

 

Try this sometimes when somebody is sharing something you personally find far-fetched, and which can't objectively be proven or disproved. Just try sitting on your hands. The biggest reason is that it is the polite thing to do, but also if you don't squelch the conversation you juuuust might hear something that piques your curiosity or confirms something you had been wondering about, or somebody else might. Dissensus is a very useful way to solve problems. This field is one big problem to solve. Let it go. 

[Guest DWA]

^^^That.

 

At a sidebar to the 2009 Texas Bigfoot Conference I heard John Mionczynski involved in just such a conversation.  I went, well, he's actually seen some of this stuff, and what do I know?  What if he's right?

 

Really.  Try it.

 

This find in Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia, of all these hominoids that would have been slam-dunk different species...only they were to all appearances associating.  Some scientists are still gobsmacked by that.  I got it instantly:  we find different individuals different places and we make them different species.  Find them in the same place....and look around you.  That's it.

 

Simple.  Too many don't do it.  Requires, you know, reflection.  And the basic presumption, preceding every thought, that you don't know it all, and neither does anyone else.

[dmaker]

You are absolutely correct DWA, on all the points you made about the habituators' prerogatives on this forum, to my way of thinking. And then there is this kicker: If you insert yourself into a conversation concerning what YOU might consider to be outlandish claims, you will end that sharing of information/beliefs/evidence/conjecture/wondering/anxiety/theories/strategies/experiences/predictions.....and much all else.  For what? For the juicing you get by just coming in as a know-it-all? Well, congratulations, you've bagged your limit of rain barrel fish.

 

Try this sometimes when somebody is sharing something you personally find far-fetched, and which can't objectively be proven or disproved. Just try sitting on your hands. The biggest reason is that it is the polite thing to do, but also if you don't squelch the conversation you juuuust might hear something that piques your curiosity or confirms something you had been wondering about, or somebody else might. Dissensus is a very useful way to solve problems. This field is one big problem to solve. Let it go. 

Why is it the polite thing to do? If I saw someone on the street standing on a soapbox spreading, what I perceive to be nonsense and made up stories as facts, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would go over and share my opinion. To do less is to do a disservice to critically thinking people everywhere. Your approach, while certainly in line with the rules here, does very little to improve society as a whole. In fact, quite the opposite.  In your view, everyone gets a free pass. Including the obvious hoaxers.  

Edited November 27, 2013 by dmaker

[Cotter]

^I'd love to see you at the next US Presidential Debate dmaker!!  You'd go hoarse.

 

I think there is a line that can be drawn here.  I think that some like minded folks should be able to discuss stuff that may be a bit more hard to swallow without the near constant interruption that can occur.  And I think there is a politeness factor involved to let those folks discuss with relative peace.

 

I think that most critical thinkers can go in a thread, read what's posted and come away with some valuable info (good or bad), without needing to pick apart every questionable comment or statement.  There are plenty of threads (or threads you can start) to discuss comments and what-not that are being thrown about in those threads.

 

I mean, here's an example:  There a Habituation Thread on the BFF.  Designed for those that have what they feel are habituation scenarios going on to discuss their experiences as well as designed for those that may want to read about potential habituations.  One could start a thread I suppose titled something like "Comments/criticisms of posts in the habituation thread" or something like that where specific comments made by folks could be analyzed and other suggestions offered, or perhaps the person that made the comment could come in and defend it, provide evidence, etc.  Leaving the original thread alone for those that just want to discuss.

 

On an aside, it astonishes me that the folks that are complaining about other certain folks constantly interrupting with what they feel is nonsensical proof/evidence demanding haven't long since put the offenders on their ignore list.  But that's just me.

[dmaker]

For me, it's not so much the outrageous claims that engage me. I don't really care too much about them anymore. Which is why you rarely see me in one of those threads. There is very little point.  What usually gets my back up nowadays  and causes me to engage in a thread are certain posters here who like to instruct everyone on how they should feel about the evidence. Patronizing entire groups of people is going to cause conflict in a thread, no doubt.  

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Why is it the polite thing to do? If I saw someone on the street standing on a soapbox spreading, what I perceive to be nonsense and made up stories as facts, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would go over and share my opinion. To do less is to do a disservice to critically thinking people everywhere. Your approach, while certainly in line with the rules here, does very little to improve society as a whole. In fact, quite the opposite.  In your view, everyone gets a free pass. Including the obvious hoaxers.  

 

While certainly in line with the rules? I think not. Nobody has ever said that anyone shouldn't "go over and share their opinion." All that's expected here is a degree of general civility, i.e. - no name calling.

 

In your soap box analogy, what would happen if you went over to defend critical thinkers everywhere, and you started tossing insults - like calling them hoaxers, crazy, etc. - what do you think the outcome would be? Would that cause them to possibly see your point of view? Would you be educating them, or would such claims cause a rift? Would your intention be to educate or to insult them?

 

It appears that you are not impressed with the civility rules of the forum. I understand this, but they're there for the benefit of the forum and it's members.

 

Personally, I don't believe many of the claims made on the forum. However, that doesn't mean that I can call those that make such claims hoaxers. After all, I have no proof to substantiate my claims. The main issue that the skeptical have with those making outlandish claims is that they don't provide adequate proof of those claims. Aren't those calling others hoaxers guilty of doing exactly the same thing? You claim hoax, yet you fail to provide evidence of that claim. I've heard it a million times - If you make a claim, you should present adequate evidence to substantiate it.

 

I'm the first to agree that some claims have a huge degree of suspicious tales accompanying them. I don't believe what I find to be simply unbelievable or unsubstantiated. Yet I fail to see how belittling them or name calling will do anything to improve others accepting a point of view or improve discourse.