Cotter Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 ^Ummm...protection of the species? To keep the Smeja's of the world from blasting mother and baby BF's? To help further the understanding of our world and what is and is not possible in our worldly realm? To help enlighten the entire human race, however ignorant, archaic, or inter-dimensional?
Guest DWA Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 The skeptic, the enemy of all things unsubstantiated. Politics, religion, consumer poducts, miracle cures, bigfoot. Any and all belief systems. Un-Rational thought. Un-Common sense. The skeptic. Sometimes, yes. But when "skepticism" doesn't consider evidence, and doesn't address experts who consider that evidence worth addressing, it's not skepticism, and becomes the enemy of knowledge and science.
WSA Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 Skeptic, non-skeptic, believer, proponent...whatever, all just labels we slap on each other, and none of them very useful to me. They arise mainly from an over-abundance of binary thinking, and this is (at a minimum) a tertiary universe. But, if you are determined to make this a one-or-the-other discussion, I would vote for: Explaining vs. Avoiding Whatever you may care to say about folks who attribute evidence to the existence of Bigfoot, they are at least handing out an explanation that substantially matches and explains that evidence, and which is very cohesive and biologically consistent (and yeah, there are fringe-of-the-fringe theories too, but I leave them aside here). Reconciling what you see and hear with what you know is the law of the land. Making sense of disparate facts is hard work. Some have the stamina and appetite for that, but a far greater number of us never will. Shame for them, really. Just saying "Naaaaah...that is not what it is", without that same level of engagement is the lazy man's way out. Saying, "I don't find the evidence as compelling as you do" does not count for engage discourse with me, and many others here. You must do something more than just trying to pound square pegs into round holes to get my attention. Otherwise, you're just taking up bandwidth.
Guest DWA Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 ^^^Bing, and go. Not considering the evidence and telling me you are not being treated properly because it's your right to spew on, well, doesn't cut that proverbial frozen H2O with me.
Guest LarryP Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 The skeptic, the enemy of all things unsubstantiated. consumer poducts, miracle cures A true Skeptic is not the "enemy" of things which have not yet been substantiated. In fact, a true Skeptic plays an important role in the process that leads to whether or not something is substantiated or not substantiated. True Skeptics cast the same doubtful eye at claims made by companies selling consumer products & miracle cures, as claims made by pharmaceutical companies that sell FDA approved products and supposed cures that end up doing far more harm than good. But because pseudo-skeptics are establishment and status quo defenders, they only cast doubt on the products and cures that fall outside of the establishment. While ignoring all of the FDA approved products and cures that have ended up being recalled and subsequently removed from the marketplace.
dmaker Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 Skeptic, non-skeptic, believer, proponent...whatever, all just labels we slap on each other, and none of them very useful to me. They arise mainly from an over-abundance of binary thinking, and this is (at a minimum) a tertiary universe. But, if you are determined to make this a one-or-the-other discussion, I would vote for: Explaining vs. Avoiding Whatever you may care to say about folks who attribute evidence to the existence of Bigfoot, they are at least handing out an explanation that substantially matches and explains that evidence, and which is very cohesive and biologically consistent (and yeah, there are fringe-of-the-fringe theories too, but I leave them aside here). Reconciling what you see and hear with what you know is the law of the land. Making sense of disparate facts is hard work. Some have the stamina and appetite for that, but a far greater number of us never will. Shame for them, really. Just saying "Naaaaah...that is not what it is", without that same level of engagement is the lazy man's way out. Saying, "I don't find the evidence as compelling as you do" does not count for engage discourse with me, and many others here. You must do something more than just trying to pound square pegs into round holes to get my attention. Otherwise, you're just taking up bandwidth. What, exactly, are you doing from the comfort of your chair and PC?
Guest Darrell Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 Thats what I mean. There are as many scientific reasons for bigfoot not existing and experts that can counter that claim as there are those that are proponetns of bigfoot. Why dont those scientists and their claims get any consideration? Because they are skeptical and this phenomena is as much social as it is scientific. Its a belief system and to many almost religious endever. Maybe there should have been more skeptics in Germany in the 1930's.
Guest DWA Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 What, exactly, are you doing from the comfort of your chair and PC? Actually discussing the evidence. We can actually provide insight and food for thought to people in the field. Far more than is being accomplished by "nuh uh, and I can't substantiate that but I can do it for thousands of posts." Hey OP! Howzabout your point being substantiated, pretty much every other post on this thread? I know. Doesn't do much for me either.
dmaker Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 I often discuss the evidence, but it doesn't matter in your world because I have a different opinion as to the source than you do. The fact that you do not find my comments or suggestion interesting sustenance for your brain does little to sadden me. Howzabout you substantiate just one Bigfoot sighting report? Just one. That is all it will take. I mean since you are sitting here talking about who is substantiating what now... 1
Guest DWA Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 You never substantiate your different opinion with any evidence requiring me, let alone Meldrum or Krantz, to take it seriously. "People hoax and hallucinate." Great. Set those over here. Now let's talk about what's over here. "People are having hallucinations that activate their inner wildlife biologist" doesn't seem to work for me. You're coming up with the "word game" component of LarryP's signature. Substantiate it with what? PROOF. "No proof" doesn't cut it in a scientific discussion about following up compelling evidence that the mainstream isn't even addressing to get the proof you're looking for. Neat Catch-22 there. But someone serious about the discussion just doesn't have time for it.
dmaker Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 I ignore everything from LarryP including his signature. Conspiracy theories and ESP do not intrigue me. You conveniently focus only on one aspect of the opposing thesis: hallucinations. I know why you do this, and any observant reader of these threads should also know why you do this. It allows you to portray anyone who supports that thesis as a big meanie-head who thinks all BF witnesses are a few marbles short of a full bag. You ignore the other components of the theory such as hoaxes and mistakes. We have ample evidence of both. The number of mistaken identities mounts every time we have another study that returns results of human, bear, beaver, dog, horse, etc. Each one of those was submitted as coming from a Bigfoot, but in the end did not. That seems to fit almost any definition of mistake that I can think of. And hoaxes, well we don't really need to get into those now do we? Both of those sources are numerous and substantiated. 1
WSA Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 To be more specific dmakertery...I'd have to say my biggest contribution from where I sit most days is I don't explain away the sense impressions of thousands as sourced from people less clever, less honest and more gullible than me. We've got wise guys a plenty. We are positively et up with them hereabouts. Don't need no mo.
Guest DWA Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 (edited) ^^^^You're really on today. Demanding respect while heaping scorn and derision on thousands that the evidence says are just a weetad more enlightened about the universe says, actually, very little for one. Edited November 25, 2013 by DWA
dmaker Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 (edited) @WSA So your biggest contribution is that you believe everything that you are told? @DWA. Are you actually saying that someone who files a Bigfoot sighting report is more enlightened about the universe? ...seriously? I'm not too concerned with your opinion of me DWA. I learned a long time ago that you have zero wisdom to share that would interest me. Edited November 25, 2013 by dmaker
Recommended Posts