Guest Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Bigfoot skeptic error #3,884,353: cherrypicking one out-there guy or one out-there idea as representative of the whole that one wants to attack. All I ever see bigfoot skeptics do is attack fringies that most of us put no stock in. They lack the ammo to go after the scientific proponents - red-light "that means you are wrong doesn't it??" indicator right there - so they go after people most of us consider ten-foot-pole territory. Was I referring to you? No. Don't feel the need to defend someone just because you're on the same "side" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Doesn't matter whether I'm involved or not. I'm simply mentioning a pretty obvious bigfoot skeptic meme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) Did I say David Paulides represents all bigfoot proponents? Again no. The comment was directed against Larry. Edited November 28, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 "Directed against." Always conducting an argument. What it seems to be about with bigfoot skeptics is being right and winning an argument. The evidence is on the other side of those blinkers. What it's all about for true skeptics is the truth. One can't trust scientists for that. I think it's all the math; it squeezes the curiosity right out of most of their brains. "I worked hard for this; I'll fight anyone trying to expand it on me." Or maybe it's the constant struggle for funding and professional standing, something Krantz and Meldrum tossed in favor of curiosity and the facts. The upside is that it's the greatest time ever for guerilla science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 ^^^Bigfoot skeptic error #3,884,353: cherrypicking one out-there guy or one out-there idea as representative of the whole that one wants to attack. All I ever see bigfoot skeptics do is attack fringies that most of us put no stock in. They lack the ammo to go after the scientific proponents - red-light "that means you are wrong doesn't it??" indicator right there - so they go after people most of us consider ten-foot-pole territory. Not true. I find every aspect of Bigfoot untenable. DWA, How exactly did Meldrum toss professional standing? He's a full tenured professor. Why do you keep saying that when it is not true? I have pointed this out to you many times lately. Yet you keep wanting to paint Meldrum as some Bigfoot noble martyr. Hardly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) Not true. I find every aspect of Bigfoot untenable. DWA, How exactly did Meldrum toss professional standing? He's a full tenured professor. Why do you keep saying that when it is not true? I have pointed this out to you many times lately. Yet you keep wanting to paint Meldrum as some Bigfoot noble martyr. Hardly. Like. I. Said. Your first sentence is clearly wrong, contradicted over and over here; your second sentence is backed up by nothing prompting anyone but the uninformed to take it seriously. And some people seem to need to get in touch with the idea of "promotions." He doesn't see himself as a martyr. I don't either. He's a scientist; and a direct resounding and utterly unchallenged contradiction of everything you think about this. ...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1... "Show monkey." Gotta work on that schtick. There was an article on bigfoot and amateur scientists discussed quite a while back on the previous forum. It is a good short article by Sherrilyn Roush, a professor of Philosophy, with a speciality in the Theory of Knowledge. She has written quite a bit on skeptical thinking. It is an enjoyable read, and gets to the heart of the efforts of Sasquatch researcher's efforts. Here is an excerpt: Still, scientists' need to make assumptions about what's plausible and what's not, she added, shouldn't deter ordinary citizens from practicing what she dubbed "vigilante science," the "investigation by unauthorized lay people" of events and objects overlooked by the scientific establishment - just as birdwatchers and amateur astronomers already do. "People should feel more entitled to go out and investigate things that scientists might say don't exist," declared Roush, citing "the broader purpose of science to find out what's going on in the world..What I'm saying is that the lay public can actually help science, and has a right, even a responsibility, to do so." In contrast to the dismissive attitude of most scientists toward Bigfoot and other such "anomalous events and objects," Roush cited primatologist Jane Goodall, who recently told NPR of her confidence in the vast number of eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot encounters by Native Americans and others in the Northwest. Goodall also admitted to being "a romantic," and said, "I always have wanted [bigfoot] to exist." That, said Roush, is "an extremely mature attitude. " Article at: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2008/02/27_bigfoot.shtml Looking at many aspects of it, there's little reason to hold out much hope for mainstream science. It's bloated; driven by petty considerations rather than truth (Peter Mattiessen had the perfect phrase to sum most of it up: "corrosive money rot"); and slavishly protected by people who don't understand science. This link, though, is hope. It may be the freshest breeze coming out of the scientific mainstream I have ever felt. Edited November 28, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Sorry, your response does not answer my question. You said: "Or maybe it's the constant struggle for funding and professional standing, something Krantz and Meldrum tossed in favor of curiosity and the facts." But that is not true. As I have pointed out many times, he is a full, tenured professor. Could you please explain how he has tossed professional standing in any way in favor of Bigfoot curiosity? And please don't just randomly throw "Got monkey" at me as a response. It does nothing to answer my question other than to demonstrate your reluctance to admit your own mistake in commentary by an thinly veiled attempt to obfuscate your response. Please, just answer the question that was actually asked and detail for us where Meldrum has suffered professionally from his Bigfoot curiosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Being a full tenured professor does not give one standing with in that same professional community. It only gives one job protection. Just as blathering about one's position on a subject ad nauseam does not garner one standing, only attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 I thought this thread was about skeptics, not scofftics and denialists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) Problem: the way the word is defined in bigfoot circles, "skeptic" means "scoftic" or "denialist." That's why those terms were coined, to remind people involved in this discussion that bigfoot skeptics - the term I always take pains to use - aren't engaging in skepticism. They're taking a tool, and turning it into an epithet. Shame that. Edited November 28, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 "Directed against." Always conducting an argument. Pot meet kettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Nope, just interested in the truth. Following evidence wherever it leads. We don't argue with you. We educate others about you. All we're doing. We win when the truth comes out...whatever it is. Bigfoot denialists are the definition of "pot meet kettle." Serious people don't care. Sorry, your response does not answer my question. You said: "Or maybe it's the constant struggle for funding and professional standing, something Krantz and Meldrum tossed in favor of curiosity and the facts." But that is not true. As I have pointed out many times, he is a full, tenured professor. Could you please explain how he has tossed professional standing in any way in favor of Bigfoot curiosity? And please don't just randomly throw "Got monkey" at me as a response. It does nothing to answer my question other than to demonstrate your reluctance to admit your own mistake in commentary by an thinly veiled attempt to obfuscate your response. Please, just answer the question that was actually asked and detail for us where Meldrum has suffered professionally from his Bigfoot curiosity. Why? I'm not interested in the answer. Oh, sorry, I already know it, and it's public knowledge. But you just gotta win that argument, doncha? And demonstrably can't even do that? Come ON. I'm right. No mistakes being made here. I mean, you are kidding, right? What IS is with this? "They're serious; they're taken utterly seriously; they haven't suffered at all for their kooky involvement in a dead end that has everybody else in their field shaking their heads; some not even in their field calling for their tenure; and their bosses denying them promotions." I didn't counter your argument, I postered it. Got monkey? Tell you what. YOU stop randomly tossing "got monkey" around, and I'll stop tossing it back at you. It is the summary of every word you have said here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 You've been educated on examples of mainstream scientists looking at bigfoot evidence, but you still cling to the idea that it doesn't happen. You continue to believe that bigfoot proponents are being prosecuted, even though Meldrum was promoted to full time professor. You still think peer-reviewers automatically reject pro-bigfoot papers, and when I showed you Meldrum's paper you came up with some convoluted reason why you're still right. You always make sweeping generalizations and when someone challenges these, you subtly change your position and move the goal-posts. Sorry, but you can't lecture people on "true" and honest debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Oh, brother. You guys don't ever give up, do you? You guys ought to take this stuff to The Tar Pit and let the blood flow. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30015-important-news-premium-access-memberships-are-now-available/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) What promotions has Meldrum been denied? You're still not answering the question, but then again, I expected no less of you. You can keep throwing got monkey out there if you want, but it has nothing to do with my question about Meldrums career. You made a claim that Meldrums career has suffered. I do not believe that to be true, nor do I see evidence of it. So I am simply asking you to verify that claim that you made. Instead you dance around and talk about "Got Monkey". Don't get me wrong, it's very entertaining but does nothing at all to answer my question. But if you won't answer it fine, I think the rest of us will just chalk your statement up to hyperbole or simple misinformation. Thanks EDIT : See, I would gladly take this to the Tar Pit, but DWA chooses not to purchase a premium membership. So, alas, I can only have discussions with him here. Being a full tenured professor does not give one standing with in that same professional community. It only gives one job protection. Just as blathering about one's position on a subject ad nauseam does not garner one standing, only attention. I'm going to assume that last comment was aimed at DWA. Edited November 28, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts